1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 1473 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

On vote 39.

Mr. Wallace — 1473

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1482

Mr. McGeer — 1483

Mr. Gibson — 1486

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): When this new government took

over after August, 1972, there were in the minds of many people

a feeling that there were fresh winds blowing through the

corridors of the parliament buildings in Victoria.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): They were right.

MR. WALLACE: And they were right. As the Member says, that

is the case. We had a statement from various departments that a

fresh look and a review would be undertaken, as, for example,

in the total field of the delivery of health services, and we

had Dr. Foulkes appointed. We had a task force to look into the

whole problem of crime and the criminal justice system, and it

has done a fine job. And then we were told that in education

there would be a commission to review the present delivery of

education in this province, and a single commissioner was

appointed.

It should be said at this point, Mr. Chairman, that that

commissioner was only given the power to recommend. There was

no operational power granted to the particular commissioner. As

I said in an earlier debate, wide terms of reference were

defined whereby the commissioner was to look at the whole

system of education — elementary, secondary, university,

continuing education.

Now here we are, 18 months later, and I think it's the duty

of the opposition in this House to consider fairly and

objectively the outcome of the particular fresh winds that were

supposed to be blowing through the various departments of

government. Tonight we talk particularly about the Department

of Education.

The Minister has appealed for us to be constructive and

positive, and I will try to be so. But before we get onto the

positive side, I think it is only appropriate and correct that

we should look at the negative side. We have the negative side

in five simple pages entitled "The Public School System

Directions for Change."

That's been called a White Paper, and I personally, with the

greatest respect to the Minister, think that it's so white that

it's colourless. It is vague; it is just motherhood and apple

pie. It tells us nothing we don't already know. It outlines the

diagnosis without giving any treatment. When one considers the

effort, the hours, the money, the good will and the

participation which have gone into the various studies,

meetings in high schools, committee work, questionnaires, you

name it, to come up 18 months later with this vague,

unproductive document which has no positive suggestions, I

think that the opposition would be failing very seriously in

its duty if it were not highly critical and apparently negative

in its criticism of this pamphlet.

The Minister herself has said that it should not be called a

White Paper, and she's right. A White Paper, certainly in the

British tradition of parliament, is usually an in-depth

documentation of a well-researched study on some subject by

experts, upon which the general lines of policy can reasonably

be determined. This particular document, Mr. Chairman, uses the

most general, motherhood types of statements.

"…major responsibility of the school system is to

provide a measure of success for every student." From page 2:

"…the system must be equitable in the provision of

educational opportunity." Was there ever any other purpose in

education or health services, or any other social service? Just

because the former government didn't provide an equitable

system, this is no blinding revelation in this document that

suddenly we've found out that this is one of the basic purposes

of the educational system. "Equitable in the provision of

educational opportunity." Perhaps we'll finish up, by the time

I get to the end of this, concluding that the world is round.

Or maybe the Premier will quote Flat Earth John and tell me

that everybody isn't agreed that the world is round.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What's the Tory position?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you'll get it in a minute, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just want to know.

MR. WALLACE: You'll know what the Tory position is. Just

hold your patience.

Further down on page 2: The system "should be redesigned in

such a way that authority and responsibility are distributed

more appropriately."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: "Hear, hear!" the Minister says. And I say

"Hear, hear!" too. I agree with that. But

[ Page 1474 ]

where is some recommendation or even some proposal for

debate as to how it should be distributed more appropriately?

What's the use of all these vague, general, motherhood

statements? We'd all agreed on this — this is nothing new.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tonight's meeting couldn't have gone very

well.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier's getting impatient. I wouldn't

want to go on quoting, as former Members have quoted today,

from this pamphlet because the government, I'm sure, is

embarrassed by such a flimsy, anemic statement of what we

already know. The function of government in our modern society

isn't to state the problem. The function is to tell us how we

solve the problem in the concept of our modern society.

If there's a changing world, and indeed there is, then the

function of government is to tell us how to deal with change.

That's the modern challenge to every government, whether you're

talking about education or highways or criminal justice or

industrial trade and commerce or labour or any other

department. It's not the purpose of government to tell us what

the problems are — we all know what the problems are. The

challenge to government is to show the leadership and the

awareness of public feeling so that they can come up with the

kind of solutions that people are seeking.

Mr. Chairman, there's been a great deal of talk that further

study has to be done and that we've got to have another batch

of questionnaires so we know what the people of Canada and the

people of British Columbia expect of their educational

system.

I would like to just introduce into the discussion a very

interesting publication called "The Purposes of Education."

That is the result of a survey by the Canadian Education

Association. This was published as recently as September of

last year, 1973, under the editor, who I understand is a very

famous educator — Joseph Lorries.

The Hon. Minister might be interested to hear a little bit

about it, and I don't mean to go into it in great detail, but

this was a study which was carried out in all of the 10

provinces of Canada plus the Yukon.

The specific purpose of the inquiry was to ascertain what

communities believe (1) to be and (2) ought to be the purposes

of education at elementary and secondary schools. It is because

of this document that I would like to ask the question as to

why we need any more questionnaires or any more study

groups.

This is a trans-Canada study which in total involved eight copies of the questionnaire

going to 1,680 communities, and there was a 92 per cent response. So I think

that we can reasonably say that this was a very fair appraisal of what communities

all across Canada consider the educational system is and what it ought to be.

Mr. Chairman, the conclusions are very interesting. I will

just quote a few: "Schools are, above all, places where one

learns." That is pretty basic, I would say.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Pretty basic, Cariboo! What do you say?

Really this is so basic that again — and I am not being

facetious when I say it — there is no need for any more

questionnaires. We are just gilding the lily when it comes to

trying to say we don't know which direction to go because we

don't have the information. The information is available. This

was the second question on the questionnaire, and the answer

was that,"Schools are, above all, places where one learns."

Motherhood. "Their prime function is to convey knowledge and to

develop reasoning power. Nevertheless attention should be given

to wider aims, provided the resources allow."

Question No. 3.

"Education should aim at helping individuals to enjoy life

more richly through the arts, and by fostering creativity. But

perhaps this is only a secondary function of the school."

Question No. 5.

"Schools and education in general should certainly help

students to get good jobs. But their vocational function, as

well as their use in increasing social mobility, is strictly

minor and secondary."

No. 6. I am just quoting the majority opinion in reply to

these questions. This is the answer to question No. 6.

"Teachers are professionals and may be trusted, but classes

are too large."

So what else is new? We have got all kinds of documentation,

Mr. Chairman, which proves unquestionably in the eyes of

parents and students, researchers and educationists and

everybody else, that classes are too large. We don't need any

more inquiry or questionnaires to find that out.

Question No. 7. The answer is very interesting, Mr.

Chairman.

"There is no need to worry about discipline in schools,

although perhaps there is some need for tightening up."

Question No. 8 — very interesting.

"There is almost unanimous agreement that Canadian studies

should play an important

part in the curriculum of every school

in Canada. Implicit in this claim is the idea that young people

should know more about their social and natural environment as

a means of deepening their perceptions and enriching their

[ Page 1475 ]

lives."

Question No. 9.

"Examinations are not welcomed."

Well, they never were welcomed. What student ever welcomed

an examination?

"Attention should be paid to personal qualities not easily

evaluated by examinations."

No. 10. Here it is very interesting, Hon. Minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman. This cross-Canada survey as recently as

September, 1973, seems to contradict some of the platitudes

that go around this chamber and go around the schools. The

answer, the overwhelming answer, to No. 10 is that,

"Innovations and experiments are cautiously welcomed."

The Minister is always being badgered by everybody and his

brother to be innovative and to experiment. I just suggest that

this particular study, done in some depth in every province in

Canada and the Yukon, suggests that innovations and experiments

are "cautiously welcomed." Maybe there are more conservatives

around the country than I had imagined.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, this isn't in your area, Roy. You go back

to sleep.

No. 11.

"There is a strong feeling that authority, particularly over

the inner life of schools, should be decentralized. Ordinary

citizens and teachers should play a

part in the formulation of

policy."

We don't need any more studies or questionnaires or

inquiries or task forces to find that out. It's all known.

These are majority opinions expressed by a really valid

cross-section of people all across Canada.

Then it mentions a few of the goals, and these goals

represent some of the statements which the Minister herself has

stated. "Curricula should be planned to allow maximum choice.

Nevertheless a common core must be retained." That is where

they use the words "common core," and that phrase is

used by the Minister in her White Paper.

Sex education should be included in the normal curricula of

schools. Anyway, many of the points…. The Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) thinks I'm getting tedious, so I'll just wind

up this part of my speech by saying that….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's

the best statement you've made so far.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just trying to make the point, Mr. Minister

of Highways, that let's get one aspect of this whole debate…. Minister of Transport and Communications, I beg your pardon. Whatever

else we may feel in this chamber about education, it is simply

not the case that we have to go around with another go-round of

studies and inquiries and hearings and committees, task forces

and questionnaires. The information is there.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, as the Member says, like another speech I

made in this House, nobody has to prove that we need

intermediate care.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to quote a little

more.

"The overriding concern in Canada about educational aims and

policies is the protection of the individual against the

powerful influences of state and society."

It sounds as if the guy who wrote this is a pretty good

conservative.

"Nothing is to be imposed. The rights of all must be

cherished and protected, whatever their religion or mother

tongue, or individual gifts. Complete and genuine respect for

diversity and individuality is indeed the necessary condition

for the maintenance of national unity.

"Secondly, the links with the past must be maintained, but

not rejected. The tradition that the schools should go on as

always teaching subjects of proven value, rather than aiming

only at social adjustment, is not rejected.

"Thirdly, the full recognition of the cultural as well as

political independence of Canada requires that more attention

be paid to the entity that is Canada.

"Finally, the aims of education as expressed by great

philosophers and thinkers of the western tradition are fully

accepted in Canada. Growing attention is being paid to the ways

that education could be used, not only to strengthen national

cohesion, but to deepen the perception of nature and of society

by young Canadians."

These opinions and feelings by many people all across the

nation seem to me to make it very plain to any government the

rather basic needs of an educational system in 1974. It may

well be that certain administrative changes are more suitable

in British Columbia than they are in Newfoundland. I would

assume this to be the case.

But in terms of basic goals, in terms of the basic needs of

students, and in terms of the overall goal we should have to

make them aware of change, and able to adapt to change.

Surely there needs to be no further inquiry or research into

such facts and opinions, which, as I say, I've heard stated in

this debate already, and which

[ Page 1476 ]

have been quoted in a very learned study by the Canadian

Education Association.

To return more specifically to British Columbia; and I don't

want to belabour endlessly a subject which has been debated

already today. But because of the very central and essential

nature of the Education Commission which was set up, I feel

that some comment must be made about the so-called Bremer

affair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WALLACE: Bremer.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Who is that?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. John Bremer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Speak up.

MR. WALLACE: The Attorney-General is a little deaf

tonight.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I just don't recognize the name.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Breemer, Bremer, I never asked him how he

pronounced his name. But I think it's most unfair — I know the

Member is not really serious — but I think it's most unfair to

talk about "Bremer the dreamer." That is an insult to a very

highly motivated and highly professional person. I've had the

privilege of meeting Mr. Bremer, and discussing his views on

education, and by no stretch of the imagination could you

consider him to be either a dreamer or to be anything but very

alert and well-informed about education in many parts of the

world.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, I don't want to belabour it, but the

fact is that he was given a task to carry out, a very

responsible task, and he was subsequently dismissed.

I'm not going into this whole business of the Premier on

television; I've already stated my position on that in the

budget debate. The Premier's action was reprehensible and

deserves a public apology, but I know we're not going to get

it. I've asked for it once in the budget debate, and I'm not

even going to ask for an apology tonight because I know the

Premier will not give it. It is a sad situation that events

followed the course they did, but let's look that over for a

moment.

In the press release on January 12 entitled "Immediate Press

Release," the Minister of Education states:

"In moving through the province last year, Mr. Bremer

certainly stimulated public thinking on education, but also,

unfortunately, in some statements did create some unrest and

concern with certain groups who assumed, because of his role as

a one-man commission, that these statements were predicting

government policy."

This is the reason given for dismissing a highly capable and

highly talented education commissioner: that his statements

created unrest and concern and people might think that it

reflected government policy.

All I say is if that was the case with Mr. Bremer, what

about Dr. Foulkes? He was causing unrest and concern all the

time, but he went on to finalize a voluminous report and nobody

questioned, apparently. Perhaps we don't know the whole story,

but as far as the public and the MLAs were concerned there was

never any question of dismissing Dr. Foulkes. Yet exactly the

same kind of disturbing statements, which might reflect policy

in the health field, were made by him in the same way as such

statements were made by Mr. Bremer.

In re-reading this press release, I think it's quite

legitimate to say to yourself: is this really the reason why

Mr. Bremer was dismissed?

It wasn't really the reason, because tonight we got the

reason loud and clear on Channel 8. Oh, the news was

interesting tonight, Mr. Chairman, you should have watched it.

Loud and clear.

While I'm standing here criticizing this pointless

motherhood–apple pie outline of the direction for education in

this province, here we have Mr. Bremer on Channel 8 outlining,

chapter and verse, the specific proposals which he had for the

system of education in this province, and I'll give you some of

these details in a moment, Mr. Chairman.

But what really opened and parted the veil was when Mr.

Bremer was asked on television tonight what would be the

consequence of his particular blueprint. "Oh," he said,

"it would dismantle the Department of Education. It would

reduce the staff by about 50 per cent." How would it do it?

"Oh, it would be because it was decentralizing authority to the

local areas and the regions."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Oh, we can't have

that.

MR. WALLACE: And of course we can't have that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think that was why he was fired?

MR. WALLACE: Do I think that was why he was fired? Well, Mr.

Member, first of all, I've given you the evidence. I feel like

a prosecutor in court —

[ Page 1477 ]

maybe the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) can come over and help me.

First of all, the evidence that was presented — that he

talked too much and caused concern because he might be

reflecting government policy — just seemed a little thin to me.

But where the benefit of the doubt exists, it's fair to give it

to the accused, and in this case the accused is a Minister of

Education. Tonight, as fast as I could scribble down what he

was saying on the television interview, we find a very specific

detailed blueprint of the future for education in British

Columbia on Channel 8. Just the details, Mr. Chairman.

We've complained that this document the Minister tabled is

rather vacuous or lacking in specifics, but here we have Mr.

Bremer tonight spelling it out the way he saw it.

What did Mr. Bremer think was the direction? The Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) asked several times in his speech,

"What is the direction? Where are we going in education?" So

I'll just tell you, Mr. Member, exactly what Mr. Bremer thought

we should be doing. Then we'll decide why Mr. Bremer was

dismissed.

He considered that there should be approximately 12 regional

community education boards in the province, and that we should

have five separate pieces of legislation: one called the

primary school Act which would deal with education up to grade

7; a second piece of legislation which would be called the

secondary school Act which would deal with junior and senior

secondary education and college education, and there would be a

certain combination of these three components. Thirdly, there

would be a tertiary education Act to deal with the

universities, Fourthly, there would be a teacher training

Act.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've had many speeches from the Minister

as to the great need for upgrading of teacher training.

Apparently Mr. Bremer suggested specifically that there should

be a separate teacher training Act to fulfill that very

specific and vital need in the educational system.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Suggested to who?

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm quoting the interview on television, Mr.

Chairman.

Fifthly, there should be a continuing education Act. Again I think the record

shows quite clearly that both sides of this House are most happy to promote

and support continuing education. We're all agreed that education starts the

day you breathe and finishes the day you die. That's one of the central principles

of education: it never ceases.

The commissioner for education, who was so abruptly

dismissed from his post on television by the Premier, suggested

this fifth statute which would be the continuing education Act

which would create an institute of continuing education.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I think the key to the whole Bremer

affair was revealed in what I thought was a most enlightening

sentence. When he was asked what would be the effect of this

new structure with the regional community boards in about 12

areas he said that it would greatly dismantle the Department of

Education, and would in fact provide a much greater degree of

administration and authority at the local level.

Right here in the Minister's White Paper is the statement

that the basic combination should be teacher-pupil-parent at

the local level. Furthermore, in terms of specific pieces of

legislation relating to the age groups of the students

concerned this plan is certainly much more in keeping with

human development.

Since we've had many Members of the opposition ask: what is the direction for education; where are we

going; what are the guidelines and the ground rules; what is

the overall blueprint; when do we start; why is this document

so vague and general and non-specified; and, of course, the

other question, why was Mr. Bremer fired? — I think the

Minister should certainly comment on the basic plan which Mr.

Bremer outlined on Channel 8 tonight.

Apparently, in conjunction with that pattern of statutes, to

separate certain grades, certain levels of education from

others, we have to decide what would be the new role of the

Department of Education. If you are going to achieve what the

Minister says is desirable, namely decentralization, more

authority and input to the teachers, the trustees, the pupils

and the parents — and I thoroughly agree with that idea….

One of the basic principles of being a Conservative is to stay

away from central government every chance you get and leave

people to do their own thing at their local level. That's

absolutely fundamental to everything that I believe in the

political sphere.

I'm thoroughly in support of any concept that keeps the

student out of the grip of bureaucrats and central government.

That's just central to my whole belief. Again, it doesn't

matter whether we're talking about health, or highways, or

consumer affairs, or education, or social services. Just keep

the individual out of the grip of the bureaucrats and let the

local citizen do his own thing at the local level.

Of course, education costs a lot of money, and I will

quickly recognize that there must be a measure of central

control over the financing of education. But there again, Mr.

Chairman, we've got this example of the Minister paying lip

service to a certain

[ Page 1478 ]

principle, namely decentralization, more local autonomy —

lip service. Then when the chips are down, holy smokes, does

the central authority ever come out charging with a sabre and

say,"No, no, no, no, no! We must cut you off!" We've had this

example with the estimated….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh Roy! I thought you had gone to sleep. Go

back to sleep. You looked so peaceful a minute ago, in your red

shirt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but there's a gentleman

across there that keeps waking up every now and again.

There must be a measure of fiscal control, but when the

Minister encouraged local school boards to develop

kindergartens, employ teacher aids and to use a variety of

other facilities, then the bitter truth that such programmes

cost money became obvious. Then she said: "Oh, no, no, no, no,

no! You can't spend all that money. That's fiscal

irresponsibility."

The point I'm really trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that

on the one hand we have the department and the Minister, and

presumably the cabinet. Sometimes I wonder where the cabinet

stands in all this mess. Is the cabinet split down the middle?

Is that part of the problem — that some of the Ministers

approve of what the Minister of Education is doing and others

are considerably perturbed?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's right. Mr. Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) applauds. He says that they are split

down the middle. That's very interesting. Public confession is

good for the soul.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There is this contradiction between what the

Minister says is the policy of the department, and what in fact

the Minister does when the crunch comes. When the crunch came a

little while ago and school boards submitted provisional

budgets with an increase of $82 million, suddenly all the

rather grandiose approval of expansion of educational services

didn't seem such a good idea because she very unfairly said

that the trustees were being irresponsible in drawing up their

budgets.

Now we find that the Minister espouses decentralization, more authority to

the school boards, to the pupils, to the teachers in regard to curriculum and

input at the local level, more participation by the students. All thoroughly

sound and, in my opinion, an excellent idea. Now we discover from a news interview

tonight that this was the kind of blueprint which the education commissioner

had in fact proposed.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Attorney-General says he didn't say that.

Well if he was busy working at very….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon? The interview that I'm

quoting was on television tonight. I don't think the man is

dishonest. Are you suggesting that he's saying things on

television that didn't happen? This was his proposal as

education commissioner, the one single education

commissioner.

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

the Chair?

MR. WALLACE: But, Mr. Chairman, you're having an awful

trouble keeping these… He's not even in the

Attorney-General's chair. He's interjecting from somebody

else's chair, Mr. Chairman. It's you that's out of order, not

me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If any Hon. Member wishes to

speak, he must speak from his own seat. I would ask the Hon.

Members not to interrupt.

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

tranquilizer.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't need any tranquilizer, Mr.

Minister of Public Works. You need something to wake you up,

not put you to sleep. Mr. Chairman, if I didn't have so many

interruptions, we wouldn't sit here so late at night.

The fact is that there is this paradox, or this

contradiction, that the Minister talks about decentralization

and doesn't follow through by her actions. She talks about more

autonomy locally, and when the local school boards take

initiatives and spend more money, she says they can't spend the

money. You can't have it both ways! We're either going to have

more local autonomy and do what you say, not what you pretend

to believe, or let's have the facts and put some kind of

ceiling on spending.

But then, of course, that would sound too much like the

previous regime. That's what the Social

[ Page 1479 ]

Credit Party did when they were in power, put ceilings on spending. But this

government is much I smarter politically. It doesn't put a ceiling on spending;

it just says,"Go ahead and develop new programmes. We believe that you trustees

are a great bunch of people, you're very responsible and you're informed."

Then when they go ahead and draw up the new programmes and present the bill

to the Minister, the Minister says,"Oh no, you can't spend all that money."

I just say let's have some — I hesitate to use the word — honesty, because

you might ask me to withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, so I won't use the word honesty.

I'll just say let's act as you say you believe. If you believe there should

be more autonomy, prove that you can let the local school boards have more

autonomy.

It's my feeling that the Department of Education al should function

in a much greater degree as a consultant in the whole process of

education. The department should be there to advise and assist and make

suggestions and play a very supportive role in the education system,

but should certainly not dictate in the way that has happened in the

last several months.

If this is the decision of the department, the Minister and the cabinet, then let's be fair and let the

a public and let the people in the teaching system know where they stand.

Right now, teachers and school boards and trustees are completely confused.

There's such a contradiction between statement and action that they don't know

where they're at, and I don't blame them. How could they be otherwise?

I don't want to go into a great deal of detail about class size and about pupil-teacher

ratio; we've been over that and I think the point has been made very well:

unquestionably, the larger the class size the more difficult it is for the

child to be receptive to the teaching process.

But the Minister herself, when she made a statement that perhaps there would

not be money to provide for a reduction in class size, also made the statement

that a big problem was teacher training, and that teachers themselves were concerned

about the training process and their ability to stay abreast of modern concepts

and modern ideas in teaching. Again perhaps the Minister could answer — I

notice the Attorney-General isn't even in somebody else's seat, Mr. Chairman;

he has left the chamber all together — if there is any doubt about Mr. Bremer's

role and his job as a commissioner.

He proposed an institute for teacher training run by a council which would

lay down policy as to the function of that institute, and there would be lay

and professional people on that council. He felt that there is a tremendous

difference between the atmosphere in which the teacher is trained to teach and

the actual environment in which they often finish up teaching. In other words,

since many teachers go to smaller or rural areas and their training occurs in

an urban atmosphere, a specific teacher-training centre would ideally meet

the needs of teacher training.

The Minister has asked that we be positive, and I would like

to just quickly touch on several points. Oh, before I do that, I

think there's just one unanswered question in the whole Bremer

affair. It is very simple question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bremer was abruptly dismissed and he is a man of high

professional standing in his own profession. Now, whatever the

reason for his dismissal, he has had his professional reputation

very seriously damaged. Mr. Bremer, like the rest of us, if he

loses his job he has to look for another job. When you go to

look for another job, the potential employer ways asks you

where your last job was and usually asks for a reference.

Now, I know, Mr. Chairman, this isn't news to anybody. I'm glad the Premier has come back into the chamber

because he's the villain in the piece.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: Yes, he's the villain in the piece, and he

knows it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I haven't been to one of our secret

meetings.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, the Premier can try all he can to put up smokescreens, but the Premier carried out a

serious mistake when he said on television that Mr. Bremer had

been a failure. The Premier knows that when Mr. Bremer goes to look for another job, he has to

say where he worked before and has to try and produce

references. How can you produce a reference when you've been

dismissed by the most powerful employer in the whole province,

the government of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, dear me, we've wakened you again. Well,

we'll get you a pillow and maybe you'll be really

comfortable.

This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman, and the government can interject their smart comments and try and make

everybody laugh, but this is not a laughing matter. I think if

Mr. Bremer gets nothing else from this government, there should

at least be some public statement which clarifies the fact that he as not

professionally incompetent.

There seems to have been some difference of opinion as to whether he was fulfilling the particular role

which this government had mapped out for him. That may be a

legitimate difference of opinion. But

[ Page 1480 ]

I'm appealing to the Premier. It is not fair to

label a professional man in public, on television, a failure without

giving him some professional clearance. If it was an honest difference

of opinion as to the attitude or to the particular approach to the

function of commissioner, that's one thing. But to leave this man in

public tagged a failure and a flop I think….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, here's somebody chipping away at my elbow

here: "And all that money." The money isn't the factor. For a

government that was s always criticizing Socreds for seeing everything

in terms of dollar bills, here we have that same government tonight

appearing to believe that because they pay off Mr. Bremer they've met

their moral responsibilities. That is far from the truth. This man has

had his professional standing seriously damaged by the public

statements of the Premier.

I don't plan to go on saying any more about it. I've always considered that the Premier was a fair man. We may not see eye to eye

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've never attacked his professional status.

MR. WALLACE: You've never attacked his professional status but you've never cleared it either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I tell you right now; I've never attacked his professional status.

MR. WALLACE: Well, would you care, Mr. Premier, perhaps when

I sit down, to stand up and say publicly that you have never

attacked his professional status?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have never attacked his professional

status.

MR. WALLACE: And that he, in fact, had difficulty that was

not related to his professional ability as a commissioner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have never attacked his professional

status, never.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've never attacked his professional

status.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I was hoping the Premier would go that little bit further

and just say that whatever led to his dismissal was not related to his professional

ability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what I said.

MR. WALLACE: You would be willing to say that outside this

House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Outside this chamber as well.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I really appreciate that statement, Mr.

Chairman, because I think perhaps the Premier wasn't aware of

the cloud hanging over Mr. Bremer's professional future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We would never stand in he way of his

seeking another job or getting another job. As a matter of fact,

we would even write a reference for him about his professional

competence. We would certainly do that.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I appreciate that.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Okay. Let's get on to something positive.

We've talked about functional literacy. I think it is very

interesting that we've gone back to what I know my parents

always talked about, the three Rs: reading, writing, and

arithmetic. I remember I once made a speech in this House on

that and I was hooted as though that was sort of old-fashioned

and archaic.

As I said earlier on, 40 per cent of the people in our jails

are illiterate. One has to ask to what degree the failure of

our educational system to make these people communicate in the

most basic way of reading and writing, listening and speaking,

led to their final incarceration in our jails.

There's been a great deal of discussion in this debate, and

the Minister's White Paper talks about the failure of the

system. But, Mr. Chairman, it takes two to tango. There's the

system and there's the person who is receiving service from the

system.

I was really fascinated to read an

article just this day in

The Vancouver Sun by a grade 12 student. The Premier

would be very interested in this. This is a grade 12 student in

Centennial Senior Secondary School in Coquitlam. I think this

is very interesting because I feel so far in this debate the

other side of the coin has been overlooked a little bit. I

don't happen to think the total responsibility is in the

system. Sure we should provide a good educational system, but

what about the students? Should the student have no

responsibility? Certainly. It's like this business we talked

about in Consumer Services last night. Has the consumer no

responsibility? Do you

[ Page 1481 ]

take the student by the hand and spoon-feed them education?

Hasn't the student got some responsibility?

This student has the gall to write this:

"School is still a chore to me. Some days I have to force

myself to go but gradually I'm breaking away from my

'conditioning' and realizing that school does have something to

offer. I have a long way to go yet.

"By 'conditioning' I mean that we are given the impression

by the media, fellow students and, yes, parents, that school is

terrible, a chore, a prison, et cetera. You learn all sorts of

little tricks such as how to miss classes, how to fake

understanding and how to get by doing virtually nothing. You

pass on your experiences to others and it gets to be a little

game.

"Many kids can hardly wait to get out of high school;

consequently they take only the courses that present no

challenge to them.

"For some, going on to university represents a great social

life, a chance to get married, a job that's uninteresting but

pays great money and an opportunity to get away from home. Few

students see university as a centre of ideas, challenges and

greater understanding.

"The ideas the B.C. curriculum wants to get across are

basically sound but the way they are presented is not."

Later on this same student states:

"There should be ground rules and deadlines but the student

should be given the opportunity to discipline himself or

herself into taking advantage of the course."

I just happen to think, Mr. Chairman, that that speaks

worlds from the student's point of view. I think students had

better find out that even after they're working in this world

there are many, many jobs that are not very exciting and not

very thrilling. If the feeling should be inculcated in our

young people that education has to be one long thrill and

excitement, and that when they go out in the workaday world

every day's work is a real thrill, they've got a lot of finding

out to do.

Does the auto worker on the assembly line who sits and

handles the same automobile

part 500 times a day find that

anything but a chore? What about the switchboard operator

trying to answer three telephone calls at the same time? Is

that an exciting, thrilling occupation? What about the miner at

the coalface? What about the typist bashing away at a

typewriter? I think it's about time we got some realism into

education also. If we are facing changes in the education

system on the basis that the whole process of education has got

to be one thrilling, exciting adventure, with no boring parts

and no difficult parts for the student, then I think we're

being very unrealistic.

I don't think that all the responsibility is on the school

system or the Minister or the teacher. There's a very clear

responsibility on the student. While I admit that in many ways

the system should be improved and perhaps made more meaningful,

I think it would be tragic if we created the impression that

all the responsibility is on your shoulders or on the shoulders

of the teacher.

The positive areas that we should be emphasizing, in my

view, include flexibility of style. I think the Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) touched on this this afternoon. I'm very

interested to have looked at the situation in Victoria, where

we have two elementary schools. One is entitled Sentinel, and

this is the school where there's a greater degree of structure

and discipline and obedience to the command of the teacher. The

other one is called Sundance, and there the students amble

around and seem to pretty well function as they see fit. I

would suggest to the Hon. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,

that there was an overflow of applicants for the

less-structured school called Sundance. I forget the number,

but parents started lining up at 4 o'clock in the morning or

some of them slept on the steps of the school overnight so that

their child would be assured of being enrolled in the

less-structured system. There's also an overflow of

applications at the Sentinel school.

I don't suggest that one or the other is the answer. The

answer lies in the flexibility and the fact that every student

does not respond to the same kind of learning environment. I

would hope that the Minister would encourage school boards in

every part of the province to diversify and provide this choice

of style, not only at the elementary level but at the junior

and senior secondary level also.

The Minister in her White Paper has talked about change. I

think the most fundamental thing that any individual in the

human race these days can learn is that the world is indeed

changing rapidly around him. Surely one of the real challenges

to the educational system is to teach the student to accept

that change, day by day, is a very natural process of our

present society. Since knowledge and information increases at a

frightening pace, the other positive element we must try to

instill in students is the inquiring mind. I think it is so

important that each student weighs up both sides of any

argument or statement and learns through an inquiring mind to

make his or her own decisions.

We talk about flexibility. I think one of the tragedies of

our educational system is that while we quite rightfully are

concerned about the slow learner or the student with a learning

problem, what are we doing for the gifted student? How are we

maximizing the potential which the really bright child has who

is two or three grades ahead of his chronological age? I've

heard of many very bright students who drop out

[ Page 1482 ]

of school. The drop-out from school is not just the child or

the student who's having difficulties and cannot make the

grade; there are many drop-outs from school who are extremely

gifted, intelligent, talented young students. I've seen more

than a few of these same talented young men and women who

finish up on the drug scene because their needs have been no

more met in our school system than have been the needs of the

slow learner.

So once again, when we talk about flexibility and the need

to meet varying kinds of student requirement in the school

system, let's try and practise what we preach and not just

espouse a very worthwhile cause but provide some of the

solutions.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we've talked a great deal about the

importance of education and the fact that students are the

richest natural resource in this province or in any civilized

country, We've talked a great deal about our timber and our

mines and our coal and our fish and every other so-called

natural resource, but the most valuable natural resource is

unquestionably the growing generation, the young people, our

children. While it's important to have many of the other

facilities of government — the health services, the highways,

the consumer services, recreation and conservation, you name it — it really is somewhat futile if we're not placing the highest

value on our children, whose subsequent contribution to our

society depends on the way in which they're educated.

To come back to a very solid fact, why is the standing

committee on education not meeting during this session of the

Legislature? What more important committee can there be? In

fact, Mr. Chairman, if I might just digress for a moment, with

your indulgence, the committee is designated the Select

Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources.

It's a vast field.

If there's one committee, of all committees in this

Legislature, which should function not only while we're sitting

in the House but between sessions, it should be that committee

with a tremendous responsibility to investigate the widest

social well-being of the citizens of British Columbia. While

I've criticized education per se, I wonder if the Minister

could tell us why it is that the Select Standing Committee on

Health, Education and Human Resources isn't even holding

meetings.

One could be a little cynical, because we went around the

province on the same committee merely confirming information

that we already knew. I would certainly agree that if we're

just about to go around the province again, in this case

perhaps on an educational matter rather than a health matter,

perhaps to document all the stuff that I've already described

has been documented all across Canada, then I would certainly

agree that there is no point in the committee functioning. I

would hope that the Minister perhaps would not only answer some of the questions

I've asked, but tell us what is the future goal or the

immediate purpose of the standing committee on education in

this House.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I would like to

answer. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) always gives a

most interesting and, on the whole, positive speech and I am

always pleased to reply to him.

However, before we get on to the positive aspects, I will

start with what appear to be negative aspects of his speech

first. I think we will start first of all with the questions

which he posed to me about Mr. Bremer.

First of all, before I start replying to you on your

specific questions, I would like to make it quite clear that

when I refer to Mr. Bremer here, I am only referring to him in

his performance as commissioner. This is no relation at all to

his professional competence as a professional educator. I

stated it many times and I stated it in the press release at

the termination of his appointment that I had great respect for

the humanitarianism of Mr. Bremer and his general attitudes to

trying to create a better school system. I said at the time

that when it came to the operational style and his role as

commissioner this is where we completely parted company. I do

hope the House will appreciate that I am talking about Mr.

Bremer's role as commissioner.

I found it very interesting tonight that when the Member for

Scott Bay (laughter) stood up he had in his hand what appeared

to be a counter document which was being held up in comparison

to my White Paper. Obviously there was an implication here that

one of the reasons that Mr. Bremer was no longer with us was

because: "Here is what he had presented to you and you

obviously did not wish to proceed with it."

The first point I want to make to the Members is that I

would very much like to see that presentation because I have

never seen it before. In the nine months that Mr. Bremer was

commissioner I had asked him to go out and evaluate the system

and report to me on an interim basis. I did not ask him for a

big, long, formal royal commission report but I certainly did

expect some interim recommendations, as I am sure you, Mr.

Member, if you were the Minister, would wish to see something

concrete coming forward. In the nine months, in reference to

public schools, nothing was born. I have not even a piece of

paper, Mr. Member, to show you what came to me from the

commissioner on the public school system. Nothing.

I'm sure you would appreciate as Minister that if someone is

going to continue in a role in which they are to advise and

make recommendations to you, surely somewhere along the line

you expect to receive

[ Page 1483 ]

something concrete to study. I had to make a decision,

therefore. In all fairness to Mr. Bremer, his style of

operation was to continue moving around, carrying on more

discussions. I wasn't sure when I would ever see anything

concrete presented to me, particularly on the public school

system, so naturally I was very concerned about continuing this

mode of operation. I am sure you would be also.

I find it very interesting that tonight, on a half-hour show

on television, you have presented to you something that I never

got presented in nine months. Very interesting. I hope you

appreciate that I am somewhat disturbed, frankly, to have that

brought up here in the House tonight with the implication that

I have rejected something which I have never had presented to

me.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Somebody said "never had a chance to bring

it in." I would think that in nine months one would expect

something to be produced.

The Member was referring to the White Paper as being

motherhood, apple pie and so on. I would like to point out to

you that the White Paper may appear very minute with just five

basic issues, but it is the first time I think in the Province

of British Columbia that a government or a Minister has stated:

"Here are the issues, as we see them, in this province

educationally."

The interesting thing is that if I had come into the House

this session with legislation in all those areas, which I hope

you realize include school board reorganization, looking at new

methods perhaps of teacher bargaining and changing the whole

structure of the role between the professional teacher in the

classroom and the administrator, I can just imagine the

outcries from you people on the other side: "Have you consulted

and let these people who have been involved in this great

change be part of the change?" I can assure you that I don't

intend to bring in that type of legislation without letting the

teachers and the parents and the school board trustees be part

of it. That is why I laid it out in those general issues.

It is interesting when I look at you in the opposition that

many of you get on your feet and you say: "Where is the

direction?" Then I wait and wait to hear from you. Now, you may

say,"I'm not the Minister," but the interesting thing

is that if the Minister comes in with specific directions at

this time without proper preparation out there, then we are

accused of being too heavy-handed.

It is also interesting to note that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was

back again with reference to the commissioner. In the last session there was

a question from the Member for Oak Bay — Mr. Speaker, may I say that I don't

think I need to be called lady Minister, just Minister of Education — if the

comments made by the "single all-powerful commissioner into education" that

schools are fading away represented the government's policy. The very thing

that you attacked me for, or questioning in the press release, you were questioning

here just a few months ago in this House. I consider that highly inconsistent.

I think I have explained to you that I have been greatly

concerned about the stirring up out there with the public. I

think it's good to have people interested in talking about

education. That certainly was done. I gave Mr. Bremer credit in

his initial work in setting up a number of meetings and having

people talk about education. I don't want to repeat again what

the basic problem was. In my opinion, it was complete lack of

content and of recommendations.

I am not sure if there's another point you brought up that I

haven't answered, Mr. Member. Have you got it there?

Oh, committees. I quite agree with you that the Select

Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources

should be sitting and discussing education. I can assure you

that that will be made available to you in the next few

days.

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

I think there is a cry developing in education in British

Columbia today: "Bring back Brothers!" (Laughter.)

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

You can't say it with a straight face.

MR. McGEER: You bet I can, Mr. Chairman, because we have had

a pretty sad display from the Minister tonight. It's very clear

that she dismissed a man who was highly competent and did have

some sort of a concept for education in British Columbia where

this Minister has none. Five nothing points in a worthless

White Paper. It's clear that the Minister fired a man who did

have a concept of the change that should be taking place.

Mr. Chairman, may we explain it once more to the Minister?

Apparently she never understood and still doesn't understand.

This commissioner of education had the idea and has the idea

that the educational system of the province should be preparing

the students of the province for the workaday world in British

Columbia. To do that, he felt that the secondary school system

should be tied in with the community colleges and universities.

In order to accomplish that, he felt that the administration of

the educational system should be regionalized so it could fit

in with these regional colleges whose mandate was to prepare

the student for the workaday world and in so doing would make

possible the reduction of the Department of Education staff by

about 50 per cent.

[ Page 1484 ]

What he was proposing, Mr. Chairman, was to increase the

efficiency of the Department of Education, reduce the cost to

the taxpayer, improve the programme by tying it tightly to

community colleges and universities, and make it relevant by

appointing to the boards of those community colleges people who

would be making use of the products of our educational system

in the industries and services that they manage in the

community.

Mr. Chairman, that makes sense, every last bit of that plan.

It provides a far better education to the students than they're

getting today, because they'll be learning the kinds of things

that will be helpful to them tomorrow. It involves the citizens

of British Columbia directly in the educational process in

their own communities. It saves the taxpayers large amounts of

money because it reduces the size of a department which we now

judge to be overstaffed and under-performing.

The Minister tells us she was given no plan by this

commissioner. Anybody who sat down and talked to him for 10

minutes, as the interviewer did on television this evening,

would get the essence of a plan that has soared right over the

Minister of Education's head.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wish I had been at that interview. I

never had the chance.

MR. McGEER: She could have had the commissioner of education

in at any time. Well, certainly, as I understand it, Mr.

Chairman, she was to have the commissioner of education in

several days after the Premier usurped her authority and fired

this man on television.

I don't know whether the Premier had another of his attacks

of foot-in-mouth disease and really didn't intend to do that.

But the fact remains that he did achieve it. The Minister

didn't know what was going on, because in the three-star

edition she ran to his defence and in the four-star edition she

agreed with the Premier. One telephone call in between

completely changed the Minister's mind, and, I judge, cancelled

the appointment that she'd made. Maybe at that appointment, if

she didn't know what was going on in the field of education,

she could have learned.

The Minister has continually asked rhetorically in this

House for new concepts in education and she had it in her

hands: something that would perhaps have made her name as a

worthwhile Minister of Education instead of just an incompetent

occupant of that office.

Mr. Chairman, what I'd like the Minister to do is not to tell us she didn't

agree with his style. We can't have people in British Columbia coming to fill

posts that depend on professional capacity, and on a mandate to do a job, if

they feel they might be cut off in mid-stream over television for the reason

that their style wasn't right.

Are we to ask every person who comes to British Columbia,

Mr. Chairman,"How's your style"? How are we ever going to get

anywhere in this province if every person who's here to do a

professional job has to ask himself "Is my style right"? Style

is the one thing that does not count; competency and

performance do count.

When we have a Minister standing up and saying she dismissed

the man because his style wasn't right, that does not reflect

on the style of the man or his capability. It reflects on the

style of the Minister and her capability.

In one day we've had two different ideas presented for

educational change in British Columbia. One was imaginative,

novel, contemporary, relevant and worthwhile. The other was a

bunch of rubbish.

Mr. Chairman, two Ministers have asked me why he didn't

submit it.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to these Ministers and to the

Minister of Education: admit you were wrong; take the man back,

and in heaven's name let's get going again. We can set aside

this White Paper, put it mercifully to rest, get a man who

knows what he's doing on the job again, have him bring down

that report and then bring in the legislation to back it

up.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, could we have just a little bit of

order from the Minister who has so much to say about every

other Minister's portfolio? He can stand up and make a speech.

When he's asked questions himself about his own portfolio, he

either answers no or he takes it as notice. But he's sure got a

lot to say about every other Minister's portfolio. He could

enter into the debate and tell us what he thinks about

education; he's an elected Member like all the rest of us.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Member continue with his

speech?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I did raise questions about the

commissioner's appointment when the Minister of Education first

announced it. It was with respect to one particular aspect that

has to do with higher education. What the commissioner did in

his time was to apply himself diligently and imaginatively to

those aspects of education where he had experience and where he

had made his name. And I think his performance amply justified

the initial confidence that the Minister had in him.

Universities are still another matter. Their future remains

a more vexing problem under the New Democratic Party even than

under Social Credit. I

[ Page 1485 ]

think there were….

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I'm coming to that in a moment. I'd like the

Social Credit Members to listen closely when I come to that

part. I know this doesn't catch the imagination of Social

Credit perhaps quite as much as the Bremer affair. But I can

assure you that the future of our universities is not a bright

one under present circumstances. It was not particularly bright

under Social Credit.

For many years in the House I presented figures as to what

the financial situation was with regard to our universities. In

1971-72, the last year that Social Credit was in power, British

Columbia spent the least of any province in Canada per capita

on post-secondary education, $56 — versus $62 in Prince Edward

Island, $90 in Ontario and $108 in Alberta.

That's why we were in trouble under Social Credit. I think

many people in our universities felt that things would be much

better under a socialist government, because around the world

socialists have developed a reputation of respect for the kinds

of activities that go on in institutions of higher

learning.

But this government has been a sad exception. The first

budget that the Minister of Education brought down produced

shock in the university system. It was the matter of press

conferences by the leading administrators of our universities,

who said that it was the smallest increase, both in dollars and

percentage terms, since 1967-68, when the federal government

withdrew from direct support of Canadian universities.

The second budget brought down by the Minister of Education

produced even more pain, though perhaps not quite as much

shock. Again, press conferences were given by our leading

administrators, because the universities were once more being

shackled by the NDP government.

The Premier called attention to a non-existent report,

trying to justify his failure to provide an adequate budget in

saying the problem was that these institutions were not used

full-time, and therefore they were inefficient. It was

impossible to find that report, because it didn't exist.

Next the Premier said there could be more money if they came

along with the kind of programmes that he liked. With all the

parsimony of the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett),

never once was there direct interference of the government in

university affairs — never once in those 20 years of

administration. While I consistently disagreed with the size of

the budget, I always respected the Minister of Finance for the

fact that he did not attempt to meddle.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) seems to think it is quite

proper, as does the Premier and the Minister of Education. You

think it is fine to meddle in university affairs on a political

basis. I say that it is wrong.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: That's what the Premier said.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I don't know how you interpret his words, but

everybody else I've ever spoken to interprets them the same

way: "Do it my way or you don't get any dough."

AN HON. MEMBER: Come with your tin cup.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You should cross Cambie Street and see

what the others say.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources has made the equivalent of a speech this evening from

his chair. He said, "Cross Cambie street." You know, for all

the parsimony that this government has shown to the

universities — and their budget everybody knows is inadequate —

the Ministers are pretty quick to turn to the universities,

that they aren't prepared to give financial support for

students who will give help to future governments.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) turned very quickly

to a medical man, a graduate of UBC, for his report. He didn't

hesitate to seek help there. The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) didn't hesitate to seek

help from the university for his consultation in Lands and

Forests. He didn't hesitate to seek help from another

university in the tangle that he's in on the Columbia

River.

The Minister of Education didn't hesitate to go to

universities for her commissioner, Mr. Bremer. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) didn't hesitate to go to the University

of Toronto for his Deputy in Labour. The Minister of Consumer

Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) didn't hesitate either. She went

quickly to Osgoode Hall to get her Deputy.

Right through the whole of the NDP benches, when you want

help you go directly to the universities that you are prepared

to starve with your budget. Where would those people have been

if other governments before you had not had the common sense,

first of all, to give better support and, secondly, to keep

their political hands off the university system?

That is how you get the people that you are going

[ Page 1486 ]

to need in the future. How many Deputies have been sought by

the Ministers of the Crown, to keep them out of trouble, from

law faculties? Yet the Minister of Education is unprepared to

give an adequate budget to the University of Victoria to

develop a new law faculty.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: But that is not what the president of the

university said.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's fairly evident in the budget — cuts to the

university. Oh, no, I am not going to enter into a semantic

war. The message from the president of the University of

Victoria came through loud and clear to the public, and don't

you avoid it, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) does not hesitate to go to the medical school graduates

for help in getting his blueprint for the future in health

education developed in this province. Yet the money isn't there

to expand the medical school. We are turning away able people

by the hundreds at UBC because of lack of funds for the medical

school.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Fiction.

MR. McGEER: Fiction, these Ministers say. The people you are

getting in there to bail you out of trouble continually aren't

fictional people. They are those who are presently on faculties

of universities, and they are people who have been products of

those universities in former times. If you have any respect at

all for governments of the future and the needs of our society

in the future, you are going to change your attitudes pretty

sharply.

Now the Minister has asked for concrete suggestions. I want

to make one with regard to the financing of our universities,

because we have simply got to get it out of the bind that was

started under Social Credit, and has been perpetuated to a more

extreme degree by the New Democratic Party. That is simply to

go to formula financing as they do in the Province of Ontario,

the province that this year is spending $700 million in

post-secondary education.

What's done in the province of Ontario should be done here in British Columbia.

That is to take a formula basis for all of the students who are enrolled and

rate them. For those who are in arts and science you give one unit of financial

support; for those in engineering, three units; for those in medicine, five

units; for those in graduate studies, six units.

Then you establish by appropriate negotiation what the value

of one of those units is. In arriving at what the university

budget is going to be, you just multiply the students in each

category by the formula for a unit.

This way everyone knows what the budget is going to be.

Proper planning then can take place. In these universities

which cannot function properly today because of the

hit-and-miss, piecemeal kind of budgeting started under the

former government, and perpetuated under this government, that

would begin to vanish and would be replaced by logic,

continuity and consistency.

That is what we need for higher education in British

Columbia, not the kind of meddling that goes on. "Bring in an

innovative programme that we like and we'll give you a little

more money. Come over and talk to us about it." That is no way

to run politics, it is no way to run financing, and it is no

way to run universities.

My advice to the Minister is to get out of that sort of

thing altogether and get into the business of formula

financing.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On this perhaps

most exciting subject in the estimate book, Mr. Chairman,

because it deals with the creation of skilled and well-versed

people in the Province of British Columbia, and because it

deals with the disbursement of 25 per cent of our funds in this

Legislature, it should be a happy and exciting debate. It has

been a very depressing debate, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Especially after the last speaker.

MR. GIBSON: No, it hasn't been a depressing debate because

of the quality of the speakers, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman. It has been a depressing debate because of what the

government has given the speakers to speak about.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to do my best, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you haven't shown any evidence of

that yet.

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking slowly.

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) said that the

Legislature should compare policies. He said the opposition

should get up and give its policies on education, and

presumably the government should get up and give its policies

on education. But, Mr.

[ Page 1487 ]

Member for Dewdney, the government hasn't done that. That's

the problem; that's the difficulty we're having.

You talk about a "sense of wonder" in education. That's a

good phrase and I'm going to come back to it later on. But the

sense of wonder has to be that we're right where we were 18

months ago when this government said they were going to look

for new directions in education. They appointed somebody to

look for it, didn't find it, or they say they didn't find it.

We have other accounts tonight that that commissioner

apparently was coming up with some pretty interesting things,

but couldn't find the direction as far as the government was

concerned and now we're back to square one.

Education thinking should start out with a philosophy, Mr.

Chairman. I want to say a little bit about my idea of what's

the purpose of education.

It's not something that works in a vacuum; it's something

that works with the whole of society. So the first job of

education, as I see it, is to assist the non-formal kinds of

education that people go through all of their lives — education

that should come from the home, from all the various media,

education from work experience and from the community. So

that's its first job — to fit in in the public and formal sense

with all of those private and informal kinds of education.

Its second role is to prepare a person for life as a human

being, as a citizen, as a producer and as a consumer.

The third job of education is to be a valuable experience in

itself because people spend a lot of time in formal education.

They may leave school at grade 8, or they may leave school at

the end of seven years of university, but at a minimum they are

spending eight years there, and maybe spending twice that long.

So it should have great value in its own, being an important

segment of a person's life.

We can't look to the school system to do the kind of things

the home should do, to be the primary inculcator of values. We

can't even really expect the school to take the place of the

home when the home environment breaks down, and that's why

other departments of this government have to be so concerned

about the home environment.

The home environment decides what must be the basic approach

of the school to the child when he gets there. Is the child

open or defensive? Is the child curious or bored? Is the child

hard-working or lazy? Is the child considerate of others or

boorish and self-centred? Those are different poles of

possibilities. You get all kinds in the school system.

Then there is also the enormous impact of the media on the learning experience.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that she thought more work should be done

on educational TV and that a consultant has been engaged to look at least at

the hardware aspects of that. I hope the Minister will be able to be more specific

later on about the actual production side of what's been done in educational

television, because exciting things are being done in other provinces.

In the role of the school in preparing the child for life,

many Members may be familiar with a publication that's called

The Whole Earth Catalogue . The slogan of that

publication was "access to tools," because it was a

catalogue of just about every marvelous kind of thing you can

buy in this world that's useful. In a lot of ways that's what

education should be; it should be access to tools.

The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), in a very fine

example earlier on today, described the role of the schools in

developing the potential of every individual. He described how

different the individuals were in his school and yet how in

different circumstances one route or another could bring out

the best in all of them, because we're all different in

talents, physical and mental abilities and interests and needs.

The school has to give the students some idea of our cultural

heritage as a human being — the arts and the sports, history,

philosophy, the history of ideas — and give the students some

introduction to relationships with other people.

Then there's the whole concept of citizenship training which

the Minister mentioned in her document called a White Paper

here. There's the concept of how we fit as citizens into our

nation and our province and our region. What are the duties of

a citizen? And what are some of the values that citizenship

implies or should imply? To what extent, Madam Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, should we expect the schools to

instruct our young people in the stern virtues of honesty, hard

work, dedication, co-operation and competition — as those two

opposed forces work in our society, the importance of making a

contribution to society, the importance of trust, the golden

rule?

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the schools should have an

important role in these things, even though based on the

fundamentals of the home. Schools should impart to the students

citizenship skills — skills which result from an understanding

of government, and an understanding of the political system

which is very different from the government, because the

political system is how to gain access to the government.

Citizenship skills in the schools should include some basic

familiarity with the principles of law, and in particular with

economics, because governments are getting so much more deeply

into our economy every day that they're making economic

decisions of tremendous consequence to all of us. Governments,

if they're democratic governments, make their decisions on

economic questions in response to pressures from the

electorate. If the pressures of the electorate are based on

poor economic training, we'll get poor

[ Page 1488 ]

economic decisions out of governments. So I was very glad to

see the emphasis of the Minister in her opening remarks on the

need to do a lot more for economics in our public schools.

The schools, as has been discussed before, particularly in

the estimates of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young), must give us all training as consumers, and as

producers as well — what we can put into society and what we

take out.

Finally schooling should be a valuable experience in itself.

Here I come back to that "sense of wonder" that the Hon. Member

for Dewdney spoke of — the joy of understanding and creating

something with your mind or your hands, the joy of coming to

know this world, a wonderful world with all its faults.

That collection of things is asking a lot from a school

system. When you add to it the range of people that it has to

do those things for — people that on the academic side range

from spectacular to the not-so-spectacular, the same among what

I would call the doers and achievers side, the salesmen or the

tradesmen or the executives who have the same kind of range of

talent, and all of those with particular problems of handicaps,

by they mental, physical or emotional — it has to deal with a

wide range of attitudes in children.

I was very disturbed to read last night some of the remarks

of the former Dean Scarfe of the University of British

Columbia. I don't know if the Minister saw them in The

Vancouver Sun . Dean Scarfe is now dean emeritus. He's

apparently been spending time sitting in classrooms in a dozen

secondary schools in the greater Vancouver area, the

article

says. He's come back pretty disappointed. He's got awfully

strong feelings, as I see it here, and they're feelings that I

don't mind talking to my own children, two of whom are in

secondary schools.

I would just like to quote some of the things he says and

ask the Minister if they are an accurate reflection of the

problems. He says, first of all, that there are lots of good

teachers in our schools and people who know how to be good

teachers, but that they aren't being permitted to do that. The

basic reason he finds for that is because of the students.

Indeed, the headline says "It's Impossible to Teach Hostile

Students." He makes the specific statement:

"Twenty or 30 years ago it was much easier to teach a class

of 40 children than it is now to teach a class of 20 or 25.

This is due to the attitudes, outlooks, behaviour and values of

young people in high school at the present time."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. GIBSON: "Right on," says the Hon. Member.

"Our permissive society has reared a generation of rude,

arrogant, supercilious, selfish young people. They are the pleasure-seeking

'now' generation. The result is that there is an alarming increase in illiteracy

and misinformation."

Well, these are pretty strong words. He finds that the

burden for this — as everyone would have to agree, to the

extent it's true — has to be placed in the home. He says:

"The malaise in the modern youth generation must to some

degree be placed on the shoulders of young parents who abandon

their children to TV or have simply neglected them.

"All young people need firm, kindly guidance and direction.

They cannot learn self-discipline until they have understood

the need for it, and this means many years of patient guidance,

repeated suggestions and wise help in achieving it."

These are good words, that last paragraph.

I wonder to what extent the school system can help parents

in understanding this and understanding the enormous role they

have, and that television is just not good enough by itself to

bring up children.

Later on he says:

"All good, up-to-date methods of teaching depend on willing

collaboration between students and teachers. Such methods

require good order and much self-discipline and

responsibility."

And later he says:

"Young children are not able to make as wise decisions about

academic or ethical matters as their parents or teachers. There

is no way in which young people can have equal say in the

decision-making process about education until they are granted

the privilege of parliamentary vote. This does not mean that

they have no say. All good teachers have always sought student

opinion."

That is a particularly important statement in view of the

movement to give students a much greater voice in the

administration of schools and in the choice of programmes. I

attach some importance to the fact that it was made by the man

who was dean of education when I was at the University of

British Columbia almost 20 years ago, and who I think retired

only very recently — a man who has spanned a generation of

educational training in British Columbia.

He concludes with an excellent paragraph that ought to be

required reading for every student coming into a school. He

says:

"Education is not acquired easily. There are few

labour-saving devices that enable a person to escape the effort

of thinking deeply for himself. There are no mechanical devices

to keep us honest, frank and courteous.

"The idea of getting something for nothing

[ Page 1489 ]

does not work in school. Welfare may be provided for those who

do not work, but education does not automatically become conferred on children

in school without effort on their part.

"Society is at fault for not providing more education for

parents and for providing too much freedom too soon for young

people. There is such a thing as kindliness which is also

consistently firm and wisely helpful.

"Children need more love, more care and more useful guidance

in these days than they ever did in days gone by."

I think there are some useful words in there, Madam

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, but there are also some

very alarming words. I would much appreciate the comment of the

Minister later on as to whether the situation in many of our

secondary schools is really as bad as former Dean Scarfe

indicated in his article, and also any comments that you might

care to make on what I consider the extraordinarily great

responsibility of parents in ensuring that the educational

system works well and a duty that the school system should keep

reminding parents of in very forceful ways throughout the

educational career of their children.

I think that society has a duty to every student to allow

and assist and even demand that they make the best of their

potential and the best of their early lives.

The Minister made remarks earlier on about the much larger

number of children in kindergarten. I commend her for this very

highly, and for the expenditures she is making in that

direction — for the work as well that's being done in

continuing education, both at the college and university level

and adult education.

I would like to speak just for a moment about the

independent schools, and I hope the Minister might make some

comment on this. I almost have to wonder if this isn't an area

where there's an internal problem for the government party

because it's a clear case of discrimination. It must make many

of the Members of the government caucus very uncomfortable to

feel that there is a case of double-taxation, and here's a case

of not allowing people to go their own way in a decentralized

way — which is what the government says it's about — even if

they live up to centrally imposed standards about core areas of

education.

Why is the government holding back on this, as the other parties in the province

gradually move to the endorsation of the position — which is a position in effect

in eight of the provinces of this country — that there should be financial aid

for independent schools? According to the Federation of Independent School Associations

there are 23,000 children in these independent schools, and it is a saving of

something like $17 million to the public school system that they are in those

independent schools.

Now isn't it right that we should foot some portion of that

bill? I think it's right that we should, Mr. Chairman. How can

the NDP discriminate on this? Do they think it's the rich kids

in the independent schools? It's not. I don't understand this,

and I hope the Minister might give us some explanation of the

government philosophy behind the continued denial of legal

recognition and financial assistance to independent schools.

Access to accreditation and departmental services — I think

that this is gradually being extended. But the financial

assistance is important and critical.

I'd ask the Minister about her views as to what should be

our teacher-training capability in British Columbia. I've heard

estimates that out of the several thousand teachers we need —

both for expansion of the school system and by virtue of

retirement of existing teachers — at the moment we have a

capacity to train something like one-third of the teachers we

need.

Now it could be, depending on school population forecasts,

that this is about the right level. It could be that our needs

for continuing teacher training will fall in years to come. On

the other hand it could be that our facilities need doubling if

we are to train in British Columbia the kind of teachers we

need for our population.

So I would ask the Minister if she has any forecasts in that

regard, and also what she has in the way of school population

forecasts. I refer again to the talk by the Hon. Member for

Skeena (Mr. Dent) who mentioned that school populations were

going down in some areas. I wonder what forecasts the Minister

has by grade and by areas of the province as to what extent

existing facilities are likely to become surplus and to what

extent they are likely to be burgeoning in other parts of the

province. If she could even give us an indication that this

kind of planning is going ahead, that this kind of forecasting

is going ahead, it would be comforting to know.

I'd like to ask the Minister her views about the

differential importance of putting more funds into secondary

schools or into primary schools. My own belief is that the

emphasis, when one is talking about reduction of class sizes,

should probably go on the primary side. In my own school

district, No. 44, the class size at the primary level is

currently above the secondary level, and the reduction emphasis

is going on the elementary side. We're trying to knock it down

by about two people per class — down from 30.2 to 28 this

year.

Are we on the right track? I think we are, because I believe

that these formative years are by far the most important in

setting the attitude that the student has to education for the

rest of their lives, and that attitude is what determines

whether they will learn, more than will the facilities

available to

[ Page 1490 ]

them, I think. An eager, questing mind is likely to learn in

spite of impediments, and a switched-off student won't learn no

matter what kind of facilities you provide for them.

Just on a small point, but one that is important to some

people, I wonder if the Minister would use her influence with

her colleague, the Minister of Finance, to have tax removed for

school supplies used in home economics, which can be quite

costly to some families that have a number of children in a

home economics class. I know one mother in my riding says that

she had to pay I think it was $40 for her group of girls for

home economics supplies and had to pay tax on them, when

generally school supplies shouldn't be taxed.

On the question of local control of the school system, the

Minister indicated that one of the matters that might be up for

review — I'll get on to the White Paper generally in a minute —

was the question of the continuation of the school board

system.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Good. I'm glad, because I was going to ask the

Minister to comment on that. I would very much hope that she

might tell the House that the school board system is definitely

going to be retained and local control strengthened.

I wonder if she might go on and suggest that local school

boards might be given authority to appoint superintendents

under the current level of, I think, 20,000 students. I wonder

if this might not very wisely be lowered to 15,000 students or

even 10,000 students. Once the superintendent is appointed by

the local school board, then that superintendent becomes a

servant of that board and not of the Department of Education,

and they become concerned with the local area rather than with

their promotion prospects in the overall school system of the

province. So I would represent to the Minister that it's a good

thing to lower that level. Certainly again in North Vancouver

we are very happy now to have achieved that authority, even if

the superintendent we had previously was an excellent man. That

was the result of a happy accident rather than the system.

In the matter of local budgeting, the Minister is on record

as saying that school districts that come in for class size

assistance, that are causing their taxpayers to bear above a

reasonable tax load because of that class-size reduction

programme, will receive assistance. I asked the Minister a

couple of weeks ago, and I'll ask her again, if she is now in a

position to say what is a reasonable tax load. What is the

increase above the previous year that becomes too great to be

borne? At which point will the Minister expend supplementary

assistance?

Will these things be spelled out specifically in future years? This is one

of the things that concerns me most. Are school boards year after year going

to have to come to Victoria, hat in hand, and say: "We hope we have made a good

case this year. We hope we have made a good case for the exercise of your discretion

"? You can't do planning on that basis, and there's always the fear on that

basis, no matter how wise the allocations are, that the motivations aren't based

100 percent on merit.

If the Minister would spell out the criteria for class size

assistance, that would be helpful.

In the existing circumstances, who would get the reward if

there were two school districts and one of them decided that

they would increase their taxes and go for a lower class size

and the other school district decided that they wouldn't go for

a lower class size but they would move up, say, some of their

maintenance expenditures? If those two school districts come

now to the Minister and say "We would both like more money," are they both going to get more money? If they do both

get more money, are you going to somehow compensate the first

school district that had the strength of purpose to go out and

tax its citizens more in order to reduce those class sizes? Are

they going to get the supplementary money that the other school

district received because they went ahead with the maintenance

and now they have the class size money too? In other words, I

hope that those who were going in the lowering of class size

direction won't find themselves penalized for that reason.

The Minister suggested earlier on that she didn't know what

would be the cost of lowering the pupil-teacher ratio in 1974.

I think she has estimated that in later years it will be around

$8 million per point in the lowering of the student-teacher

ratio. Surely the Minister has an estimate for 1974. I can't

imagine an open-ended commitment. I can't imagine a

conversation with the Minister of Finance that went something

like "I would like to make a commitment to lower class sizes"

and the Minister of Finance would say "How much will it cost?"

and the Minister of Education would say "I have no idea" and

the Minister of Finance would say "Fine, go ahead." That

doesn't sound to me like something that would have happened.

The Minister must have some estimate that would be helpful for

the school boards.

I wonder as well if the Minister could give us any foresight

at this time as to what might be the foundation mill rate. I've

heard some estimates that the school assessment around the

province might likely be up in the order of 25 per cent this

year. I would presume then that the foundation mill rate will

be lowered in some acceptable dimension, or else the school

districts will end up paying a much higher percentage of their

budget and the provincial government will end up paying less.

Without asking for precise figures at the moment, I wonder if

the

[ Page 1491 ]

Minister could reassure us that the foundation mill rate

will in fact be lowered commensurately with these higher

assessments.

I will make a representation on behalf of my own School

District 44 because they've been working very hard on many

matters, including class size. Their operating budget went up —

in 1972 it was 9.8 per cent over 1971; up another 13.4 per cent

in 1973; and in 1974 up 21.4 per cent.

That's political courage, Madam Minister — increasing taxes

that way — because most of these increases come out of local

taxes. That's why the proportion paid by the province is so

important to us. It's gone from 43.8 per cent in 1970 to a high

of 48.9 in 1972 back down to 45.6 this year. We hope that that

ratio will be at least that high and hopefully higher next

year. The foundation rate, of course, is terribly important in

that.

Our salary bill in the School District of North Vancouver is

up by over 12 per cent this year when fringes are considered.

With the class size I mentioned that has been budgeted for from

30.2 down to 28, there is a lot of money being spent and a lot

of help needed.

The district submitted an excellent brief to the Minister on

December 13. That brief related both to class size financing

and to certain assistance in the matter of capital programmes

and schoolroom accommodation. I hope the Minister will be in a

position to answer that brief very shortly.

Now we come to the subject of the White Paper, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say that it is very brave of the Minister to table

this White Paper at the time of her estimates. I really

congratulate her for that. It has made it possible to have a

much better debate on it than we otherwise could have.

I wonder who wrote the pamphlet. "Functionally literate" in

here is defined as every person who must be able to read,

write, compute, hear, understand and judge. I wonder if the

author of this pamphlet was functionally literate. There's not

a great deal of sense and guidance in it for any one. If Mr.

Bremer was fired for making statements disturbing to the

public, then the author of this should be fired for the same

reason. It's got very few answers to questions and it's even

missing a lot of the questions.

The Minister suggested earlier on that the House would be

upset if she had come forward with specific legislation on all

the topics. Of course the House would be, and very properly.

That would be what I would call a Bill 31 approach to education

and it would be wrong. But there should be some suggestions as

to how to proceed in here.

A White Paper should do three things: It should provide a lot of data and be

well-researched. It's not as if there hasn't been time. There have been at least

18 months and there have been task forces working on this and that. There are

a lot of financial experts in the department who have a lot of data on the finance

side, and there are curriculum experts on the curriculum side — pedagogical

experts. I think that we would have waited a little longer for a detailed and

well-researched White Paper, and we might still have some research supplement

published to it. It would be a wonderful thing if that would happen, Madam Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, because the first thing, as I say, a White Paper

should do is provide data and this one doesn't.

It should be a document that people can read and go through

and say: "Now I know the facts that I need to know to talk

about this case."

The second thing it should do is provide options. This White

Paper hasn't provided any options. Maybe we shouldn't call it a

White Paper. It's printed on white paper, but that's the only

similarity.

What's it say? It says,"The student has no means of

resolving any conflict with the system; he must conform, leave

voluntarily, or be suspended." Now there's a statement of more

or less fact, Mr. Chairman. But then what happens after

that?

A problem has been posed. Good. How is it to be solved? What

are the different means available for the solution of this

problem of the student relating to the system? Is the layman

supposed to read this document?

I don't know how many copies it's been printed in, but I

presume the ordinary citizen of British Columbia interested in

education can get a copy of it. Are they supposed to read it

and say,"Aha, well, now that's an interesting idea and I see

three or four different ways that this can be improved"? Those

three or four different ways should have been suggested in this

document. And they still should be suggested. Perhaps the

Minister will do that a little bit in this debate.

Here's another one: "The structure of the education system

should be redesigned in such a way that authority and

responsibility are distributed more appropriately, keeping in

mind the principle and so on.

Now what does this mean, Mr. Chairman? Does this mean, for

example, that we should elect principals? Is that the meaning

of this? Does this mean that a professional association should

have much more role in the appointment of teachers and the

assignment of their duties? Does it mean that students should

have a veto over the new principal? Just what does it mean?

There are all kinds of ways and means that one could change the

authority and responsibility structure, but unless the Minister

spells those ways and means out for us and for the people

interested in education in this province, we won't know what it

is.

Under the question of finance, the White Paper mentions that

"At the present time, the government is considering a number of

changes in the methods by

[ Page 1492 ]

which revenue for education is raised and the methods for

the disbursement of that revenue to the school districts."

That's a very specific statement, Mr. Chairman. The government

is considering a number of changes in the methods.

I wonder if the government would let us in on the secret,

Mr. Chairman, of the number of changes they're considering.

Just what are they? Financing, of course, is central to the

problem of education, and how do you inject more general tax

funds into the educational process without subverting local

control? That's the critical problem of education

financing.

And what are these means and ways that the government is

considering — the "number of changes"? Maybe the Minister could

describe some of those and maybe she could print a supplement

to this White Paper that would give the options and the

potential answers to the questions she has asked, because

that's the second thing a White Paper should do.

The third thing a White Paper may or may not do is suggest

directions. That's up to the government as to whether it wants

to suggest directions at this point, but they should at least

provide options to the people.

Then in the

summary of the White Paper it notes that the

Deputy Minister of Education, who is a very busy man just in

the ordinary course of administering the department, "in

addition to his operational responsibility for the department,

will coordinate official responses to the Paper and work with

special interest groups and delegations."

Now, Mr. Chairman, can the Deputy do this without help? Can he really do this

and do his job in the department too? I would question it. So there's going

to have to be some kind of structure set up to coordinate the responses to this

White Paper and to go out and get the reaction and help the committees to go

out and get the reaction from around the province.

It says, "The Minister of Education will provide the

leadership for public discussion of the issues outlined in this

Paper." But she can't be everywhere around this province. She

has duties just like the Deputy has. So who's going to be

full-time on this White Paper? What kind of a structure is

going to be set up? It's important that whatever is set up

should make sure that all of the representations in the briefs

don't end up in a trunk or a filing cabinet somewhere in the

department and not acted on, because that kind of consultation

and participatory democracy is a sham and almost worse than

none at all.

So I would ask the Minister if she would be able to comment

on the structure that's going to follow up this White Paper. I

wouldn't be surprised if it resembled very much another

commission because all we've done is got rid of one and come up

with the same questions that the first one was supposed to

answer — and maybe never really had a chance to.

So I'd like the Minister to comment, if she would, on the

ongoing structure as related to the White Paper.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:55 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada