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

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1439 ]

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 21, 1974

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Filing date of annual statement, Glenshiel hotel. Mr.

Chabot — 1439

Short-term snow removal contracts. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

BCHA-RNABC dispute. Mrs. Jordan — 1440

Report on transportation of Sukunka coal. Mr. L.A.

Williams — 1440

Possible purchase of Tweed Line Tours Ltd. Mr. Curtis

— 1440

Surrey request for neighbourhood improvement aid. Mr.

McClelland — 1441

Proposed legislation on foreign landownership in B.C.

Mr. Gibson — 1441

Federal-provincial cost sharing in paving the Alaska

highway. Mr. Phillips — 1441

Percentage of ICBC insurance risk laid off to out of

province companies. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1441

ICBC private salvage depots. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1441

Possible change in B.C. Ferries souvenir and gift

shops. Mr. Curtis — 1442

White Paper on education. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1442

Autoplan rates for handicapped persons. Mrs. Jordan — 1443

Federal-provincial DREE negotiations on B.C. northwest.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1443

Other possible areas for DREE agreements. Mr. Phillips

— 1443

Privilege

Possible conflict between message bill and terms of

reference of

committee. Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1443

Mr. McClelland — 1444

Mr. Smith — 1444

Mr. Speaker — 1444

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

on vote 39.

Mrs. Webster — 1444

Mr. Schroeder — 1448

Mr. McGeer — 1452

Mr. McClelland — 1452

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1452

Mr. Dent — 1454

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1456

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1459

Mr. McGeer — 1460

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1463

Mr. Curtis — 1464

Mr. Rolston — 1466

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1470

Petition

Mr. Clerk's report — 1471

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

government, I wish to express publicly our appreciation for the

attendants around the Royal Family, and publicly express

thankfulness that neither Princess Anne nor her husband were

wounded in that attack yesterday.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, seated on

the floor of the chamber today is one of British Columbia's

senior public servants. It's my pleasure to introduce him to

the Legislature and to ask the Legislature to welcome him. He

is Rear-Admiral Mickey Stirling, the Agent-General from the

United Kingdom, who has been spending some time with the

Ministers on his annual visit back home. He spent this morning

with my colleague, the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon.

Mr. Lauk), and will be spending some time with other of my

cabinet colleagues.

Rear-Admiral Stirling comes from a family

in the Okanagan which has given a great deal of public service

to this province, his father being a Member of Parliament in

Canada from the Okanagan. I am assured by our Agent-General

that in recent months he has not been working a three-day week,

but indeed has been working the usual overtime that we expect

from the Stirling family. I welcome the Rear-Admiral on behalf

of the Legislature.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, sitting in

the gallery today are 39 visitors who are part of the Cross-Reach

Senior Adult Day-Care. Programme. This programme was started by the

Holy Trinity Anglican, the Fairview Presbyterian, the Canadian Memorial

Church and the Fairview Baptist Church in 1972. The basic philosophy of

this programme, Mr. Speaker, is that the quality of life for all

persons should remain at the highest possible level, and to that end

the programme is trying to ensure that the older people with whom they

work maintain their personhood. For this reason I would like this

House to join me in saying welcome to them.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): In the gallery today 'we

have two distinguished visitors from the City of Revelstoke, Mr. and

Mrs. Arthur Parker. Mr. Parker was a former alderman in the City of

Revelstoke. His son is now the mayor of that city, and his wife, the

former Mrs. Kelly, has the distinction of having a son, the

Member for Omineca, represent that part of the country in the

Legislature. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to Mr.

and Mrs. Parker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): As you know, today is the

first full day of beautiful spring in beautiful British

Columbia…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Aye.

MRS. JORDAN: …and I see that I and the other ladies are

recipients of lovely daffodils. I really don't know who to

thank, but I would thank whoever is responsible, I'm sure, on

behalf of all the ladies and say that we all stand as ladies in

this Legislature for equality of women, but we do enjoy the

fringe benefits of being ladies.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I confess to the

deed with pleasure, to present….

MRS. JORDAN: Sir Galahad.

MR. CURTIS: Well now, I…Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't take it

quite that far. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, on this first full

day of spring, I think it's appropriate to honour our lady

Members with something representative of the beautiful riding

of Saanich and the Islands. Reports to the contrary from the

mainland notwithstanding, this is the daffodil capital of the

world, and certainly we're very happy to greet the ladies

today.

I would say also, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, that on

the basis of the progress of the session, these will be

followed by summer annuals and chrysanthemums in season.

(Laughter.)

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

to ask the House to welcome three special guests of mine from

Hope. For these gentlemen the privileges and rights of

citizenship have a particular significance: Alderman Frank

Araki, Toshio Mukaida, and Chester Pielak. I ask you to welcome

them.

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

Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to table

reports:

(1) The Eden Fire Board of Review of the British

Columbia Forest Service, with respect to the Eden Fire at

Salmon Arm last year; and (2) books 1 and 2 on the Eden Fire by

Dr. David Turner and associate consultants, Dr. Harry Smith,

Dr. Kimmins, and Dr. Henderson of the University of B.C.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

FILING DATE OF ANNUAL

STATEMENT, GLENSHIEL HOTEL

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the

[ Page 1440 ]

Minister of Public Works. Can the Minister advise

when he'll

be filing the annual statement from the financial operations of

the Glenshiel Hotel?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, all transactions are handled with a

board through the full-time manager, and all documents will be

open to public scrutiny through the public accounts

committee.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: if there's a financial

statement, will the Minister be tabling the financial statement

in the House?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It will be available to the public

accounts committee and, as the Member for Columbia River now

knows, for the first time in 20 years a Member of the

opposition chairs that public accounts committee.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: could the Minister

tell us under which vote number we could find it?

SHORT-TERM SNOW

REMOVAL CONTRACTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the

Minister of Highways whether the provisions of the fair

employment practices Act are being applied to the

owner-operators of equipment, in particular with respect to

short-term contracts for snow removal?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'll take that as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

BCHA-RNABC DISPUTE

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the Hon. Minister of Labour.

In view of the completely inadequate performance of the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in the current hospital

crisis, does the Minister of Labour…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is no time for

editorials.

MRS. JORDAN: …intend to initiate mediation between the

two parties affected by the Minister of Health's previous

intervention, the B.C. Hospital Association and the RNABC?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in view of that facetious and

erroneous statement preceding the question, I just want to

assure the Member that should mediation services or any other

services provided by the Department of Labour be requested, we

stand ready to assist. I have full confidence in the Minister of Health's ability to look after the provision of

health services in the province.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out before you proceed to a

supplementary that questions should not contain inferences,

argument, opinion, or anything in the way of an imputation. I

gather that from your question.

MRS. JORDAN: I wouldn't want to refer to the Minister of

Health's performance. The supplementary is: Mr. Minister, do

you intend to initiate mediation?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to say what

move I intend to take at this time. The situation is being

watched very closely and I'm confident that it's well in

hand.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister,

in fact, indicated that he will initiate mediation between

these two parties?

HON. MR. KING: The answer is no. I haven't indicated

that.

REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION

OF SUKUNKA COAL

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Hon. Premier. Has the Hon. Premier received

from the Research Council its report concerning the study of

alternative transportation routes for Sukunka coal?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice.

POSSIBLE PURCHASE

OF TWEED LINE TOURS LTD.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs: is the provincial government in the process of

purchasing the firm known as Tweed Line Tours of Victoria?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, they

are not.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the same

Minister. Has the firm Vancouver Island Coach Lines been

purchased, or is it in the process of purchasing Tweed Line

Tours of Victoria?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll have to take that as notice. I'll try

and get an answer for you tomorrow.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary on the same general

[ Page 1441 ]

subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you would hold this, would you not,

till tomorrow? If the answer is given then, make a

supplementary then.

MR. CURTIS: If you wish.

SURREY REQUEST FOR

NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENT AID

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question, Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Housing. Would the Minister advise the House

whether or not he has made an adjustment at the request of the

Provincial Secretary and the Member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Hall)

in the neighbourhood improvement aid request for Surrey?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The announcements

for the neighbourhood improvement programme have been made and

they're final. There will be others following in the next five

years, and we expect to make further announcements in the

fall.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Have you had

representation from either the MLA for Surrey or from the

people of Surrey, the municipality of Surrey, to reconsider

your decision?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've had letters, phone calls and

representations from the press. I haven't had people asking me

to change my mind. I don't think people expect that this would

be the case.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON

FOREIGN LAND OWNERSHIP IN B.C.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Lands and Forests. In view

of the Minister's statement in the press that legislation to

control foreign land ownership in B.C. will be introduced by

1976, and in view of the fact that the problem is getting

worse, literally, every day, how can the Minister justify this

delay and this notice to foreign land speculators?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think, clearly, Mr. Speaker, the

government has an obligation to bring forth the best foreign

land control legislation in the nation and that will take some

time.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd point out to the Hon. Member that his

question seems to be somewhat argumentative in its scope.

MR. GIBSON: Could I just ask on a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: how soon?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: (Mike off.)

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COST SHARING

IN PAVING THE ALASKA HIGHWAY

MR. D.M., PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to direct my question to the Minister of Highways. In view

of the fact that applications have been filed by a consortium

of petroleum companies in North America to build a $5.7 billion

pipeline down through the Mackenzie Delta, will the Minister of

Highways initiate negotiations with Ottawa for cost sharing in

paving of the Alaska Highway?

HON. MR. LEA: Negotiations are going on now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How long

have these negotiations been going on, Mr. Minister, and what

progress is being made?

HON. MR. LEA: For some months; good progress.

PERCENTAGE OF ICBC INSURANCE RISK

LAID OFF TO OUT OF PROVINCE COMPANIES

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reply to two questions which I took as notice.

One on the 19th when the Member for Victoria asked what percentage of

the insurance which is other than auto…what percentage of the risk

has been laid off to other insurance companies outside the province.

The answer is: reinsurance cessions on general insurance

business written to date are approximately 30 per cent for

general insurance writings.

ICBC PRIVATE SALVAGE DEPOTS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next question was asked by the Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) yesterday: Is ICBC planning to

include any privately operated salvage depots, or are they

forcing them out of business?

The answer: the total loss vehicles are held in holding

yards until ICBC obtains release of ownership. Once the vehicle

becomes ICBC property, it is transferred to a salvage depot to

be sold by tender to auto wreckers and licensed dealers in a

minimum of three vehicle lots, as is, from the six planned

locations throughout the province — Kamloops, lower mainland,

Nanaimo, Prince George, Vernon and Victoria. Currently 399

vehicles, including ICBC-owned release vehicles, are being

held

[ Page 1442 ]

in various towing companies' holding yards throughout the

province. To date, 45 vehicles have been sold by tender and an

additional 135 have releases with 84 of these presently out to

bid.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister was answering a question that I

asked in the House yesterday. I'd like to ask him whether or

not the ICBC is contemplating making available positions for

staff who have been working in the private sector in the

various car storage and car salvage operations which will be

going out of business.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The staffing will be handled in the usual

way — applications. People with experience will certainly be

the most likely to be hired, I would say.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): As a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to thank the Minister for his answer on the

general insurance. I wonder if he could give us an answer at

his earliest convenience on what proportion has been re-insured

of the auto

section also. That is, just the liability portion

of it.

I'd like to also ask him this other question, which he

answered for the Member for Langley, if he could tell us if the

wrecks are sold to dealers or auto wreckers only, or are the

tenders made by private individuals? Are they available for

sale to private individuals by tender?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd have to check that one out. I would

imagine that if they're up for tender, anyone can tender I

presume. Individuals….

MR. MORRISON: I'd like you to check that if you would. And

the re-insurance, at your earliest convenience.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

POSSIBLE CHANGE IN B.C. FERRIES

SOUVENIR AND GIFT SHOPS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications: Are the souvenir and gift shops as presently

operated on board the major vessels of B.C. Ferries to be

phased out or altered in any way?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're remaining as they are for the

present.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, on that, Mr. Speaker. I asked: are

they to be phased out? Surely the Minister can be more

forthright in his answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I answered the question, Mr. Member. I

said that they were remaining as they are for the present.

MR. CURTIS: What does that tell us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It tells you they are remaining as they

are for the present. No decision has been made to phase them

out, period.

AN HON. MEMBER: When are you going to turn them into cattle

boats?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that might be the kind of boat the

Member likes. I don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a new manager, Mr….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There can't be four on their

feet right now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm still answering this question.

Perhaps they would sit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, now, now, my good friend. You don't

have to tut tut.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Minister either

answer or take his seat, please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but this Member's interrupting me.

As you know, there's a new manager in the ferries and he's

examining every aspect of their operation. So that's why I say

it remains as it is. No decision of any kind.

WHITE PAPER ON EDUCATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd ask the Minister of Education, Mr.

Speaker, whether the document that she tabled in the

Legislature yesterday, "The Public School System: Directions

for Change," is the White Paper on education to which

she referred earlier this week in reply to questions in the

Legislature.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): That is

correct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask as a

[ Page 1443 ]

supplementary, to the Minister, she informed us on Monday

that this document has not been seen by her cabinet

colleagues.

May I ask her now whether or not they have had an

opportunity to see this, and whether the document was presented

after cabinet decision?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: They all had the opportunity when it was

put on your desk yesterday to see its final form — when you

did.

AUTOPLAN RATES

FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS

MRS. JORDAN: To the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications: is it true, Mr. Minister, that handicapped

people and people on various pensions pay exactly the same

Autoplan rate as anyone else in their category, but that when

they claim public liability from ICBC, their pension value is

deducted from the amount that ICBC will pay them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will have to take that question as

notice.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would quote

from the Minister's own leaflet….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: …with his picture on the front that the

total amount of weekly premiums shall be reduced by the amount

of any pension payable under the Canada Pension Plan ,

old-age pension, and other similar plans.

Is this your policy, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, there's a document there

that she says is the policy. Why ask me the question?

MRS. JORDAN: I want to know if you know the answer. I want

to know if ICBC is going to continue to rip off the handicapped

people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! I point out to the Hon.

Member that if the documents are available in a public form,

you don't ask about them in question period.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DREE

NEGOTIATIONS ON B.C. NORTHWEST

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A question for the Hon. Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister indicate the stage of

negotiations between the Government of British Columbia and the

federal government with respect to DREE agreements for the

northwestern segment of this province?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): We have been negotiating for the past several months.

Specific agreements are not yet on the horizon. A general agreement may

be soon.

OTHER POSSIBLE AREAS

FOR DREE AGREEMENTS

MR. PHILLIPS: To the same Minister: are negotiations for a

DREE agreement taking place for only the northwest portion of

the province or are they for the northwest, the northeast or

central parts of the province? What area are we talking about?

Are we talking about the whole province?

HON. MR. LAUK: The whole province.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I raised a point of privilege

yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm just going to deal with it now, Hon.

Member.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was raised yesterday by the Hon.

Member for Cariboo as to the question of privilege involving

the fact that a message bill had been put on the order paper,

called the Real Property Tax Deferment Act , at a time

when a committee is presently, under its terms of reference,

working on the subject of the review of assessment procedures,

with particular emphasis on making recommendations to the House

respecting new assessment legislation. In the process the

committee is to deliberate and examine existing legislation

that bears upon the assessment function at the provincial and

municipal levels.

First of all, I would like to indicate, only briefly, that

one can find no instances in the books of authority that deal

with this question as a breach of privilege. Consequently,

since it is a standard rule, so far as parliament is concerned,

that we have not created new forms of privilege or new breaches

of privilege insofar as they are manufactured out of the

proceedings and events of the House, it follows that we have to

be bound by the precedents that we already have.

In the circumstances, I should point out to the Hon. Members

that if there were a conflict, the House has its powers to

resolve any such conflict,

[ Page 1444 ]

were it to exist, by several means. To give an illustration,

the House could discharge the committee, change its terms of

reference or, indeed, commit the bill at a certain stage to

that committee.

Consequently, the House is always master of its own

procedures, and therefore it would not constitute a breach of

privilege in any event. But added to that is the additional

factor that bills take precedence over all other forms of

business, because it is a question of legislation, which is

urgent, generally, and is so declared by the House when it

commences its business.

Consequently I cannot see that the point would be well taken

that we could deal with this as a breach of privilege.

If the Hon. Member feels dissatisfied in any way with the

situation, he could propose motions for the House to consider

to alter its procedures in regard to the treatment of either

the committee work or the bill. But in any case, looking at the

bill and comparing it to the terms of reference of the

committee, they do not really appear to conflict in any event.

One deals with assessment and the other deals with the

deferment of taxes, as I read them. Now there may be room for

argument on that, but that, as I said, does not affect the

point as far as privilege is concerned. I can't, therefore,

find that it is a matter of privilege.

MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just beg to disagree with

your comment that there is no conflict between the bill and the

committee. I think the action of the government proves that its

mind has been made up and that the committee is window

dressing, and it's a severe slap in the face of a

duly-constituted committee of this House, Mr. Speaker. I would

expect that the government would have had better sense than to

have taken those kinds of precipitous moves.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think this is an illustration of not

really discussing a point of order or a point of privilege, but

dealing with the argumentative aspect of the question of the

advisability of taking these courses.

That is a matter for you to deal with, if you wish, by a motion on

the procedures of the House; and that is why I say that it is not a

question of privilege. Whether it conflicted or it didn't…. In this

case it doesn't matter — my opinion on that question — because in

reading it I could not help but see that they were different aspects

all together, in my opinion. One was on assessment. You may differ on

that and I'm not saying that I have the right to that opinion,

necessarily. Every Member has the right to their own opinion on that.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, just one

comment on your remarks. You said that you can find no

precedent recorded in any of the Journals or other

information guides available to us that would indicate a breach

of privilege in this particular instance, and therefore it

couldn't be a breach of privilege. Do you mean to say that no

new breach of privilege can occur in any House unless it has

been previously recorded? How did the breaches of privilege get

there in the first place?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, that's a curious thing. In 1688, when

parliament became supreme, they sat down with the House of

Lords and worked out what they considered privilege to be, to

protect the rights of the chamber.

Forms of privilege were then developed which have not really

substantially altered since about 1830 and, consequently, when

you raise a point of privilege you really must be dealing with

the established forms that were accepted by parliament. In

other words, we don't go about creating new breaches of

privilege or new forms of privilege.

In fact the reverse is happening — a restriction — but that

is not really a subject for opinion here.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a breach of

privilege, certainly there is a conflict there. What is it?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think that's a matter for studying

May , and we can do that in our spare time, perhaps

together.

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.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In committee there is no order

of speaking, or speaking order. The idea is to allow the debate

to shift around to different parts of the House, and I'm doing

that now.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, yesterday we

listened to the most amazing debate on education that I've ever heard.

When you listened very carefully, the speech made by the

[ Page 1445 ]

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) in some ways sounded

very reasonable; but let me say it was exceedingly difficult to

follow because it was filled with dichotomies and lack of

understanding as to what education is all about.

I don't know whether that Member has ever been an educator,

but it was exceedingly difficult to follow. Let me illustrate.

He deplored the removal of the strap from the schoolroom as a

means of corporal punishment because he believes in an

authoritarian approach to education. But on the other hand he

deplores the loss of Mr. Bremer and his philosophy of

education.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Member; you have to

remember that. You have to make a choice. Mr. Bremer was

directly opposed to the authoritarian approach in every sense

of the word. He didn't believe in it, and he didn't believe in

the strap as a means of punishment or keeping students in line.

He believed in complete involvement with the entire community

and that the students should be completely involved in the

educational process and in the development of the educational

curriculum.

His philosophy of education, Mr. Chairman, was exceedingly

fascinating, I will admit, and he was able to approach a great

number of people in the community. But you have to remember

that we also live in a very practical world where guidance for

the young is still necessary. They have to be brought up and

educated in a slightly more controlled situation than his

philosophy would suggest.

On the other hand, let me say that the strap is the most

degrading form of discipline that there is. Would you want to

bring the cat-o'-nine-tails back into the prisons? It's the

same sort of thing, only at a different level.

I remember that when I was a small child in grade 4. I had a

teacher who had her strap on her desk every day. Children who

hadn't their lessons prepared, who weren't able to answer, got

the strap. One after the other, she would strap them. We were

all terrified. The day came when I got the strap, and you know

what happened, Mr. Chairman? From that day on, I had no fear of

her, and I lost my respect for her completely. I'm sure that

most other children feel the same way. I think it destroys and

slows down the educational process in classrooms when the

teacher uses the strap. Once they use it, they have to continue

using it because that's the only defence they have against

those little kids in front of them. I think it's degrading. It

slows down the whole process of education in the classroom.

This is what Dr. Peter Bullen had to say about it last year.

He said:

"The Minister of Education did consult with parents,

teachers and principals before abolishing corporal punishment. In fact,

this new era of consultation, informing and listening is one of the

best changes that has been introduced by the new Minister, and I

applaud her for it."

That comes from The Province , February 28, 1973.

Dean Scarfe, who has been the dean of the faculty of

education at UBC for the past 20 years had an

article in the

Sun on Tuesday, March 19. He has been an outstanding educator. I must

applaud the Social Credit

government in their early years for having put in Mr. Williston

for a short while as Minister of Education. He saw the wisdom

of bringing good people in, because he himself was an educator.

He bought out the whole faculty of education from the

University of Manitoba and transferred them to B.C. Manitoba

had an excellent faculty of education and he knew it because he

recognized what was good in education. He brought them out

here. Dean Scarfe over the years with his education faculty has done a

fine

job for this province.

He is now a dean emeritus. That means he has been retired,

but he's back there in an honorary position where they want him

to do some lecturing. This is what he had to say about

education today:

"There is strong evidence from several parts of the

world

that good high school teachers will be in increasingly short

supply over the next few years. Already, in some parts of the

world, good teachers are avoiding the big cities and are

leaving the high school classroom for other occupations or for

administrative positions within the school system….

"Democracy is mistakenly equated with equalitarianism

and

has led to a plague of committees whose major activity is an

animated or bored exchange of ignorance."

I'm not going to read the whole article, but I want to read

one or two more paragraphs of what he had to say.

"With excellent teachers in districts where honesty,

truthfulness, courtesy and good manners are still considered of

importance, new methods are very successful.

"Unless society and parents take a much firmer hand in

promoting higher standards of behaviour, morals and ethics with

young people, even before they get to school, the number of

good teachers entering the profession will decline

progressively.

"Freedom without responsibility and restraint becomes

anarchy and barbarism. Responsibility means consideration for

others and collaboration with others for the greatest good for

the greatest number.

"Civilized behaviour is not equalitarianism. Not

everyone is

equally competent or capable. Some are cleverer than others.

Some are better able to make judgments in matters on which they

are experts than are those whose expertise

[ Page 1446 ]

lies in entirely different walks of life.

"Young children are not able to make as wise decisions

about

academic or ethical matters as are their parents or teachers.

There is no way in which young people can have an equal say in

the decision-making process about education until they're

granted the privilege of parliamentary vote. This does not mean

that they may have no say. All good teachers have always sought

student opinion."

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) also suggests that

rather than reducing the class size, it's not desirable to have

schools with enrolment of over 300 students. Mr. Chairman, I

would suggest to that Member that the Social Credit government,

when they were in power, built these huge, monolithic

monstrosities that we call schools which house between 1,500

and 3,000 students each, because they believed that bigger was

better.

It's utter nonsense to say our Minister has done nothing in

education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one thing.

MRS. WEBSTER: Let me list some of the things that have come

about in the last year-and-a-half.

Last year, schools were all given an interim budget to make

up for the deficits for the niggardliness of the Social Credit

government before us, because their finance formula was so

poor.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Lay it on 'em, Daisy, lay it on

'em.

MRS. WEBSTER: They imposed restriction that prevented

teachers from having more than 6.5 per cent increase in

salaries and that prevented schools from increasing their

budgets so that they could have better quality counseling

services and could have schools that had gymnasiums and other

facilities outside of the actual classrooms. They were quite

ready to build schools with classrooms only. This defeats our

whole purpose of education because these other things are not

frills. Home economics is not a frill. Industrial arts is not a

frill. Recreation is not a frill. Athletics are not a

frill.

Our whole development of a good physical education

programme, good home economics programme, good industrial arts

programme and programmes of that type are the things that are

more necessary today than ever before because we're living in a

changing community, a community in which there will probably be

less people working. And because there'll be more time for

leisure, because people won't be working as long hours as they

have in the past, they will have to be prepared for leisure as

well as work, and that is part of our educational system.

Secondly, she gave teachers back the compulsory clause to

BCTF membership. This repealed iniquitous Bill 3 that had been

instituted by the Social Credit government before. It was one

of the things that defeated the Social Credit government in the

last election.

Thirdly, she has been instrumental in bringing more women

into the top situations and positions in the teaching

profession. There are now quite a number. I believe there are

nine principals and about 14 vice-principals in the Vancouver

School system, and the same is starting to operate throughout

the entire school system of British Columbia.

The first woman district superintendent has also been

appointed under this Minister of Education.

Last year, when I was first elected, I looked into the

discrepancies between salaries of the home economics director

and the inspectors of industrial arts and the provincial

superintendents. The men were all on one schedule, and the home

economists were all on a lower salary schedule. I talked this

over with the Minister. Just recently this has been changed so

that the women are on the same salary scale with the men where

they do the same type of work.

Also in home economics, there's been a great shortage of

home economics teachers. This was discussed last spring. The

Minister took it up immediately and worked it out with the

universities so that courses are more relevant to teachers of

home economics. As a result, we are going to be able, from our

own universities — Simon Fraser, UBC and UVic — get a greater

supply of home economics teachers than we have in other years

and we hope that in a while this disparity also will be

rectified.

I hope that the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder),

as well as the other Hon. Members, has studied this working

paper on community colleges. If you wish to talk about new

workable directions, here they are. They're in here. For the

first time a task force which was set up by this Minister in

November has given full recognition to the fact that education

is a lifelong process; it doesn't just stop at the end of high

school or university.

It also recognizes that there must be education for leisure

as well as for work. It recognizes the fact that we must have a

better type of education programme for new Canadians that are

coming in, with women with small children getting the

opportunity to have a bilingual type of educational programme

in some of our adult education centres so that the child learns

be a great advantage to large groups coming in or to ethnic

communities that are settled in one spot.

The task force also, through this working paper — that's the

working paper on community colleges — wishes to establish

community colleges in all areas of the province. It suggests

that four more community

[ Page 1447 ]

colleges should be established so that there will be an

equalization of opportunity for people, regardless of which

region of the province they live, to be able to have continuing

education or to be able to go back to study something new or to

have refresher courses in the type of work that they are doing.

There will be something for everyone.

It also suggests that there will be nominal fees for courses

and they will relate to the type of work that people will be

able to go into. For instance, in the past, practically all

courses within an adult education centre had the same type of

fee. Now it is recognized that if a person goes into

electronics, he will be receiving a much higher salary or pay

packet than a person that takes up power sewing and goes into

the needle trades where the final pay packet is still on a very

low scale.

MR. LEWIS: Will Chilliwack get some of these facilities?

MRS. WEBSTER: Well, I should hope so.

We are hopeful that these, according to the task force, will

be available to people in all parts of the province.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on but it is all here for

anyone who wishes to read it and study it. It is very well and

clearly laid out. This working paper is the result of a task

force that held public meetings from the time it first was put

together last November and given its terms of reference. They

travelled around the province to all the various school

districts and held public meetings. They also went to the other

provinces, all the way from here right through to Quebec to see

what was happening in community colleges, junior colleges and

trade schools in the other provinces so that we could get the

best type of education for adults or for anyone that wishes to

go into the community colleges.

Don't tell me, Mr. Member, that nothing is being done. You

have tried to give the wrong impression.

MR. LEWIS: Shame on you, Chilliwack. Shame!

MRS. WEBSTER: You say that there is no progress being made

in the public schools; you say that there's confusion. There's

not confusion and there is progress being made in every area of

the province. There are innovative programmes that are being

tried out and they are being encouraged by the Minister.

MR. LEWIS: You should have a red face, Chilliwack!

MRS. WEBSTER: Would you like me to name one? Yes, I will name

one. It gives me a great deal of delight to go into David Thompson

Secondary School in Vancouver, where there are all sorts of innovative

programmes going on all the time. Here we have a situation where there

are two Vancouver schools near each other. On the one hand there is

Killarney Secondary, which has a traditional programme, Mr. Member. On

the other hand, about 10 or 15 blocks away is David Thompson, with a

progressive type of education where they have all sorts of progressive

and innovative programmes going on. There are a great number of people

still in the David Thompson area who would like to have their children

go into a more traditional type of educational system. They are

permitted now to send their children over to Killarney Secondary.

There are quite a number of people also in the Killarney

area who would like to have more of a progressive type of

education, and they are permitted to send their children over

to David Thompson. The interesting thing, Mr. Member, is that

the two rather balance each other, in that there are

practically the same number of people going from the Killarney

area into the David Thompson as there are from the David

Thompson area into Killarney. I would be very honoured if

sometime you were in Vancouver and you would like to go through

David Thompson to see some of the fine programmes that are

going on. I would be happy to take you there and let you see

them.

MR. LEWIS: Give him an education.

MRS. WEBSTER: These programmes are an evolutionary type of

thing. Some of them just started this past year. They have, for

instance, what they call a bachelor survival course, which is

really a home economics course for boys so that they can learn

what is actually going on. They can learn to cook for

themselves, learn to press their own pants, mend their socks

and do a little bit of washing and other things so that they

can keep themselves clean and well-fed.

I've just been given a little note here saying,"Please

welcome the Burnaby South students in the gallery on behalf of

the Speaker and the Minister of Municipal Affairs." I'm very

happy to welcome you. I'm always happy to welcome students,

having been a teacher myself. It's wonderful to see so many

students take an interest in what is going on in the

Legislative Assembly. I hope you're all going to be taking back

some good impressions to your school as to what is happening

here and as to what we're trying to do in our process of

legislation.

The Minister has also involved and encouraged the

involvement of Indians in schools where there is a predominance

of Indians as teachers and teacher aides. They're encouraged to

become involved in selection of curriculums. I know with the

Indians that this is a slow process. They are very shy; they

are very diffident. It will take a long time before they are

able

[ Page 1448 ]

to come into our system and compete to the same extent as

white children do, but it's hopeful that with some help they

will stay in school longer than they have before. That is the

purpose for which the Minister has tried to involve more

Indians in situations where there are Indians in the school. As

you realize, until last year in some of the schools where there

were Indians, not only were there no Indian teachers there

wasn't an Indian nurse, there were no Indian janitors, and

there were no Indians on the board of school trustees. They

really felt they were alienated from their own people in the

schools which they attended.

Another innovation in Vancouver is a special school for

drop-outs which is located in an old warehouse. There is also

an integrated programme with business. This is at David

Thompson, and I believe one or two of the other schools are

adopting it. They have put it into effect in the last two

years. That is a programme integrated with the business

community so that students can go into the business community

for about a month under supervision, so that they know what

the work situation is like and they realize what the problems

are. It makes them relate a little more closely to some of the

programmes they're taking at the senior high school level.

Changes of this type are going along by a process of

evolution; this is not the sort of thing you can institute

immediately. I think Members must realize that when working

papers and White Papers come in, they cannot be instituted as

quickly in the field of education as they can in other

departments. Some of these programmes have to be tested as

pilot projects. Parents, by tradition, are inclined to be

conservative and some of the school districts are inclined to

be conservative. The changeover takes place a little bit more

slowly. If we put it in too quickly, we would be criticized for

trying to speed up the change when people aren't ready for

it.

Another thing the Minister has done is to allocate all the

moneys the federal government has allocated for French

programmes towards the purpose for which it was intended. Now

it doesn't any longer go into the general revenue for

education; it is used for French only.

At present, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to say, but I

hope to participate in the debate later if the occasion may

arise.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'm glad to continue from

where I left off last evening when I was so rudely interrupted

by the 6 o'clock hour. I was developing a theme which, as it

developed, became even more and more frightening. Now with the

recess having taken place between last night and today, and

having had an opportunity to speak with more individuals, my

case is even stronger today than it was last evening.

It's a little difficult to pick up the thread of thought in

the middle of a talk, however, I'll begin.

The Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) made a

somewhat impassioned defence for the Minister, and I must

compliment her for doing that because anyone who would not

protect the position taken by her own Minister would not be

worthy of carrying the banner of the political party she

happens to subscribe to.

She said she found some differences in the statements I made

yesterday. She said I was for "classroom control." I guess I'll

never apologize for that; you had better believe I'm for

classroom control. Unless we have classroom control we soon

will have no classrooms. In some areas of the province this is

precisely what's happening.

She said this happened to be incongruous with the fact that

I was against the dismissal of Bremer. I don't think anyone who

was listening to the talk yesterday, Mr. Attorney-General,

would have concluded I was against the dismissal of Mr. Bremer.

I was against the way he was dismissed. "Barbaric" is a better

word to describe the way he was dismissed than the result of

his dismissal.

I noticed the Premier banged on his desk when the Member for

Vancouver South made a statement against corporal punishment.

I've got to tell you something: the Premier's not against

corporal punishment; he's not against corporal punishment at

all. When the executives of the Egg Marketing Board were in his

office and didn't want to accede to his wishes, was he going to

become corporal? You'd better believe he was going to become

corporal, because he said he was going to have to resort to

kicking the "beep-beep" out of these fellows.

Corporal? I guess he was to become corporal!

The Member for Vancouver South said something about my

proposal of having enrolment in schools not larger than 300. I

was quoting Mr. Bremer at the time. This is not a position I

take, Madam Member, but rather, this is a quotation directly

from Mr. Bremer.

I was also interested in the list of accomplishments she

attributed to the present Minister, and these were some of the

ones I listed. She said the Minister provided a provisional

budget to make up for the niggardliness of the previous

administration.

Agreed; she provided a provisional budget. But immediately,

having excited the boards of the various school districts with

the hope that there were going to be more funds available, and

when those boards moved to their next provisional budget on the

basis of the increases they had been granted, she pulled the

strings on them and said,"You dear people out there are

irresponsible; you're overspending." She passed judgment on her

own provisional budgets given to make up for the niggardliness

of the previous administration. She said, "We have been too

[ Page 1449 ]

extravagant. We're going to have to pull in the strings

because this kind of spending is irresponsible spending." Even

the Minister herself was not convinced that she had moved in

the right direction.

You say she restored compulsory membership in the B.C.

Teachers Federation. Let me ask you, what did that do for

individual rights? What did that do for the individual who did

not want to be a member of the B.C. Teachers Federation? This

Minister, Mr. Chairman, who was so adamantly opposed to the

word "compulsory" when the word compulsory was linked with

arbitration, now took the very same word and attached it to

another word "membership" and believes firmly in compulsory

membership. You answer me the questions: What did that do for

individual rights? What did that do for the teacher who doesn't

wish to belong to the B.C. Teachers Federation? Is that a move

ahead? It doesn't look like it to me. When you talk to the

individuals out there beyond these four walls, it doesn't look

like it to them.

You say that one of her major accomplishments was to appoint

the first lady superintendent. Well, I welcome lady

superintendents. I believe that when it comes to education a

lady can do just as good as a man any day. As a matter of fact,

in most other areas ladies do better. But in the area of the

superintendency which lady did she appoint? She appointed a

shirt-tail relative of hers. It's not hard to understand when

you see the development of the appointments under this

socialist regime. They bring in all their friends and all their

political hacks. I don't see anything incongruous with the fact

that the Minister would appoint a shirt-tail relative of hers

who happens to be the mother of the Deputy.

She defends all the innovations that have come to schools

since this government has been in power. I want to ask you:

were those innovations initiated in the offices of this

Minister or were those innovations created out there in the

classrooms where they belong? Where did the initiation begin?

If they began out in the classroom, then how can we attribute

that as an accomplishment to this Minister across there? No,

I'm afraid, Madam Member for Vancouver South, that I have to

discredit most of what you said today. And I have to continue

in building the case that I began yesterday.

The case simply stated is this. This Minister is not sure

which way to go, and we have no leadership in the Department of

Education — no definitive statements, no direction, no

leadership, and a fading confidence in the Minister.

That confidence faded even further when I heard the Minister answer

just a few moments ago in this House that this paltry, little piece of

double foolscap is to be the White Paper referred to and long-awaited,

and that this is supposed to be the panacea for the problems of the

Education department. As one education critic said in my hearing, he

writes longer letters than that to his wife, and also puts more content

in those letters.

I want you to know that this is just the most general of

terms that I have ever read related to education. The

preamble

is nearly as long as the main body, and it says only those

things which have been said since the beginning of education.

It takes the position that we are well aware this government

has taken. But again, as I said yesterday, there is no

direction in this particular pamphlet — and it's called

"Directions for Change."

I had dinner last evening with the executive of the B.C.

Teachers Federation.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: No, I'm sorry, I wish the phone had rung, but

the phone didn't ring.

They asked me: "Is this the White Paper that we've been

waiting for?" I'm sorry, but I misled them, and I said: "No,

gentlemen, I cannot believe that this is the White Paper that

we've been waiting for. I must come to the defence of the

Minister — I think that there is another paper of directives

still to come." They said: "We certainly hope so."

Confidence in this particular Minister is waning. I have

developed the areas of the schools not doing the job, the

dismissal of Mr. Bremer and discipline and morality and

permissiveness in the classroom. I went through the area of

finance and I had just arrived at classroom size when 6 o'clock

arrived.

I have to compliment the Minister now. She has taken a

definite move in a positive direction in one area of education,

and it is this: she has clearly stated a goal that she wants to

decrease classroom size by 1.5 students per teacher for each

year in the next three years. Madam, I commend you. That's a

positive goal. Whether you make it or not is hardly to be

discussed, but here is a positive direction. I commend you for

it.

There is a bit of a problem. Whenever you make that kind of

a statement you must make arrangements in the supportive areas.

You've got to take a look at the financial structure to see

whether or not it will support that kind of progress, You have

to look to see whether or not you have the personnel to support

that kind of progress. In a brief that I received from the

school trustees association, they wonder about it. They say

that just to maintain the present ratio, they are going to have

to hire something like 1,000 teachers in this year, and they've

got to do it by September, 1974. This is just to meet the

one-year reduction.

If they are supposed to meet with the entire reduction

suggested by the Minister of Education they're going to have to

hire an additional 1,600, for a total of 2,600 new teachers. I

have a question:

[ Page 1450 ]

where are you going to get these teachers?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right.

MR. SCHROEDER: What do you mean that's not right? That's

directly from the school trustees. They are going to have to

hire a total of 2,600 new teachers to meet the Minister's

edict. Where are we going to get 2,600 new teachers? They worry

lest we should be able to find 1,000 new teachers. And even if

they can find them, they say there's no way that they can

provide classrooms by September for the extra classes that will

be created by shrinking the present classes.

So here we are. We have to be thinking in terms of salaries

for at least 1,000 new teachers, and we have to be thinking in

terms of capital expenditure right now for those extra

classrooms. The problem is that the boards won't know how many

teachers they'll be able to hire until after a survey is

completed — another one of those that I talked at length about

yesterday. Until the survey, they won't know how many teachers

they'll be able to hire, and by the time they are given the

green light to hire the teachers, they won't be available

either in Canada or in British Columbia or abroad.

So here is a perfectly good goal which I have commended the

Minister for, yet she has failed to look at the circumstantial

things that need to be considered in order to make this kind of

a goal possible. Again I have to conclude, together with the

school trustees association, that the Minister really is not

sure which way she wants to go and that really she is not

offering leadership even in the area regarding class size.

The president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation has plain out

and said it. He complained that the government has shafted the

school boards who wish to reduce class sizes by failing to

indicate how much money will be available. As a result, the

boards are frustrated. They don't know what approach to take.

They don't know how to re-arrange the class apportionment. As a

result, they are sitting back and doing nothing. They're

waiting for the leadership that I've been talking about for an

hour.

The reason why they're afraid to move is because when they

did move in the direction that the Minister suggested, they

were called irresponsible. Mr. McFarlan says that he believes

the Barrett government was clearly given a mandate to decrease

class size, and he believes that the moneys should be there and

be made available and should be designated and should be let

for all to know that the funds are there so that the boards can

move in positive directions to decrease class sizes.

If we're going to decrease class sizes, I think we need to do it

intelligently. I have created a very crude graph that gives the birth

rate in British Columbia and that gives in addition to the birth rate

the net increase in students when you consider immigration and

emigration. I have created the graph with a six-year lag so that the

birth rate can be superimposed upon the classroom enrolment at the

first grade level.

It tells you some beautiful things. It tells you that fewer

and fewer people are coming to live in British Columbia and

staying here. It tells you that the graph for the birth rate

has been dropping since 1962 and dropped steadily till 1966 and

all of a sudden we had an increase. People came to live in

British Columbia and had children while they were here, God

bless 'em. Up until 1970, there was an increase in birth rates.

And ever since 1970, there's been a constant decrease in the

birth rate.

If we can create enough classrooms to house the number of

students that we will have after enrolment in 1976, we can

begin to taper off in the provision of classrooms. After that,

capital expenditure will not need to be nearly so great because

school enrolment in total is going to level off.

These are the facts that come out of just a crude little

graph, and I thought that the House would be interested in

these facts and would like to use them in their own

deliberations.

Now, there's another area that I wish we could get some

direction in, and this is the area of equal opportunity for

education for every child in British Columbia. When the

Minister stood to speak, she said that every child in British

Columbia shall have the opportunity to be educated, although

perhaps that education might not happen in a classroom as we

know it today. I concur with that. That is beautiful. There are

7,000 children in the Vancouver area alone who have learning

disabilities. They are handicapped people and they need to have

an equal opportunity for education.

But there are some students in the Province of British

Columbia for which no provision has been made, at least not

adequate provision has been made.

These are the children who are handicapped on the plus side

of the ledger, and any who have had to deal with children who

are handicapped on the plus side of the ledger will recognize

the fact that they are handicapped just as surely as those who

are handicapped on the negative side.

I'm talking about the exceptionally brilliant children. No

provision is made for their additional potential. These

children are potentially the leaders of our nation. They can

learn more quickly. They can advance more rapidly. They have a

greater capacity for learning. they have a greater capacity for

retention, but there is no provision for their exceptional

qualities.

I would like to see some direction, some leadership, from

the department, even if it was a hope that said, "by 1976 we

plan to have facilities and programmes for these particular

people," because these are the kids that get bored in

the classroom, and

[ Page 1451 ]

long before the ninth grade.

While you are considering equal opportunity for education,

Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will

consider that technical and vocational classes must be

introduced at the eighth or ninth grade level. It is when the

child is 13 and 14 that boredom evidences itself, and it is the

time when the student needs to begin selecting the vocation

that he will follow, hopefully for the rest of his life.

I believe that we should require that all students through

to the twelfth grade at least be required to be involved in the

basic educational classes — the "three Rs," if you need

to know — the "three-R" classes. However, I think that at the

eighth or ninth grade — and I should leave that for the Minister

to determine — the technical and vocational classes should

become more than just options. They should become precise

directives in the students' lives, and although now we have

industrial arts and we have woodwork and we have home economics

classes, referred to by the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs.

Webster), these are all available at the junior secondary

level.

Nonetheless, there isn't a concentrated effort to provide

technical and vocational instruction at those levels. Usually

what happens is that you wait until they graduate. If they can

overcome the boredom and they can graduate from the twelfth

grade, then they can go to a vocational school or a technical

school or a college after that time. I would like to see some

leadership in this regard.

Next, I would like to refer just briefly to the needs of the

independent schools. I think that all the Members of the House

are aware that I am sympathetic to the position of the

independent schools. Although the government in a survey gave

clear indication that there is no support forthcoming for

independent schools as long as this Minister is in charge of

her portfolio, nonetheless I will continue to press for

recognition of independent schools.

I believe thoroughly that they provide an alternative for

education, and I believe that regardless of whether our present

school system is good or bad, an alternative system of

education is necessary in British Columbia. If it is good it

allows the students the choice of what kind of education they

may require. If the present system is bad, then we have a

responsibility to the students of our province to provide them

with this alternative.

I will raise the banner of independent schools high, not

because they happen to be ecclesiastical in origin, not because

they happen to subscribe to perhaps the more traditional forms

of education — because they don't, all of them. Nonetheless, we

must ensure that they exist.

As they exist now, they exist on after-tax dollars. The money that

they provide for their own education — which, by the way, is direct

savings on the public purse — that money is provided by themselves

after they have paid school taxes that you and I and anybody else must

pay.

It has become a hardship for them to exist. I believe that

we need to take some steps to at least recognize that they do

exist, that they provide a service to all of British Columbia,

and that we must provide something to help them in their

existence.

I just have one question of the Minister today. She is aware

that textbooks have been provided to the independent schools at

no charge. Now I can't discuss this because of legislation, but

I understand that textbooks are going to be provided for all of

British Columbia — all public schools — at no charge. This is

beautiful. This means that the advantage that was being

realized by the independent schools heretofore will no longer

exist.

I'm asking the Minister if she would consider making up to

the independent schools the amount of dollars that their

advantage represented before when public schools had to pay for

their textbooks. Now that public schools are receiving their

textbooks for nil, would we be able to make up that amount of

money to them in lieu of textbooks? I know that you haven't

given it any consideration, but I think it is worthy of

consideration.

I would love you till the day you die if you would make this

money available for the independent schools.

I think that I have developed a case…

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: I'd better stop now, yes.

…rather precisely. The opening statement that I made

yesterday simply was this: we are disappointed that this

Minister is not sure which way to go, that we have no

leadership in this department, and that we have a fading

confidence.

I must, in conclusion, give you the list of people and

organizations and associations and federations that are

involved in this fading confidence.

The B.C. School Trustees Association does not find any

directive from this Minister in regard to financing. They

believe that the Minister is leaning toward centralized

financing, but they can't be sure; and they can't really tell

which way they are to move until they are sure. They are

waiting for the Minister to come right out, in front of God and

everybody, and tell it like it is. Is she for centralized

financing, or is she going to allow the financing as it

presently exists at the municipal level?

They say they are not receiving any directive when it comes

to pupil-teacher ratio.

Secondly, the B.C. Teachers' Federation last evening

expressed lack of confidence in this Minister because she has

failed to give them direction.

[ Page 1452 ]

Although they say she has given them all the help

financially for themselves and their pension funds and all the

things that they so desired from the previous administration,

they said all this help has been given to them, but no help for

the students. At the students' level is where education takes

place. They have expressed no confidence.

The teachers expressed lack of confidence in this Minister

when they demonstrated on the steps of this Legislature not too

many weeks ago. I was privileged to go out to meet with them

and to listen to their complaint. Their complaint was loud and

clear, Mr. Attorney-General. They were looking for leadership.

They were looking for directives. They wanted someplace and

someone in whom to place confidence, and found no one.

The education authorities and the university leaders express

lack of directive, no leadership.

The industrial people say,"Where is the leadership which is

providing students for us who are ready for employment?" No

directives, say the industrial people.

The editors, I referred to them yesterday. Editors around

the province are saying the same thing. "When, oh when, oh when

are we going to hear in which direction we are going in our

educational field?"

The Premier expressed lack of confidence in his own Minister

when he didn't even leave with her the prerogative of putting

the axe to Mr. Bremer. He had to do it himself, and he waited

until she was out of town. Now if that is not an expression of

lack of confidence, then I wouldn't recognize it when I saw it.

The Premier doesn't have confidence; but that's not all.

From within her own department there is an expression of a

lack of confidence.

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER: "Leadership" — I'll let you have it. Are you

ready?

Interjection.

MR. SCHROEDER:

"'Leadership is needed to bring something concrete out of an

abundance of proposals for changing

education,' Deputy Education Minister Jack Fleming said

Friday.

"'In my year in the department I've seen literally thousands of

proposals, usually well documented and researched,' Fleming told about

400 persons at a conference. 'It's just possible that every conceivable

notion for educational change has been presented. What seems to be

missing is some leadership, something to give direction through this

plethora of ideas. But one of Mrs. Dailly's criticisms of Bremer was

that after nine months of operation he had entertained many ideas and

produced no definite direction for change.'"

Even from inside her own department comes word of an

expression of lack of confidence. Madam Minister, to you

through the Chairman, I have to say this: there is lack of

confidence in every area and in no area is it more apparent

than in the people of the Province of British Columbia.

I would say to you, move quickly to restore that confidence.

It can be done in this way. Give direction. Tell the people and

tell this House which way you want to go in education. We'll

try to give you all the guidance that we can. Hopefully,

between the 55 of us, we can go in the right direction. But for

goodness' sake let's not let education in British Columbia

deteriorate just because we in the department don't know which

way to go.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We've got some very

reluctant daffodils here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Really

what we were waiting to hear was some more definitive

statements from the Minister and some answers to excellent

questions posed by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder).

I don't intend to take a great deal of time right now in the

Minister's estimates, except to ask her a question regarding

the meeting she held with the presidents of our three

universities. It's my understanding they were here earlier this

week, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they were

here. They must have come to ask for money. They met with the

Premier and the Minister, according to their statements

afterwards. I'm sure they expressed their dire need for

financial relief, and I wonder if the Minister would tell us

what action she contemplates to avert the impending disaster at

the universities in the province.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I think that would be most

helpful to us, particularly in answer to some of the questions

that the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has raised and

that most important question just raised by the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I'd be happy to let the

Minister tell us the results of that meeting if she wishes to

do so. I think it's of considerable interest to this

assembly.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): First of all,

before I go on to the questions from the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, who was concerned that I wasn't answering

all the questions that had been posed by the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack, I sat and listened to you very carefully, Mr.

Member. I really didn't find that many questions, frankly.

Generally they were statements and

[ Page 1453 ]

obviously you and I have a basic disagreement on some of the

statements which you made.

There was one area that you did bring up which I consider

shows that you certainly had some positive things to say about

it. You'd worked out your own little graph with the matter of

teacher supply and demand, and I think that's certainly worthy

of a reply. It shows that you have a concern, as I think a lot

of people do, in light of the fact that the government has

committed themselves to the reduction of the class sizes.

The first thing I want to say is that I think you based your

figures on a false premise, unfortunately, in that you are

assuming that we're talking about the reduction of the

pupil-teacher ratio based on the situation where you are not

necessarily using many of the teachers who have professional

teaching certificates now. When we're working with the teachers

and the trustees in this survey, we are assuming that we're

going to work it out on the ratio of the number of teachers in

the province who have professionally qualified teaching

certificates.

MR. SCHROEDER: How many are there?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Approximately 27,000 at the present

time.

MR. SCHROEDER: You're only using about 23,000 of them.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, if you include principals,

vice-principals, department heads and supervisory staff. But I

wanted to make clear first that that's the basis on which we're

working. After it's worked out as to how much would be given to

the board to alleviate that situation, then it would be up to

the school boards to use their own responsibility and autonomy

in directing the funds made to them in the best way

possible.

One statement you made was about taking services to children

outside of the classroom. I think we must consider whether we

have to go on continually building more and more classrooms to

alleviate the classroom shortage. I think this is one area

where we will be able to look at innovative ideas.

We have had suggestions that perhaps there should be an

increase in the supply of school buses, so that we can

transport students out of the classrooms. For instance, you

could have two classes using one classroom. One in the morning

could be doing their academic work while the other class at the

same time could perhaps be visiting in the community — the

museums, the theatres, et cetera, or other types of activity.

There are many areas which can be looked at if we are not

necessarily caught up in the bind of having to completely look

at the answer only as building more and more classrooms.

There is also perhaps something we could look at, and that's

the matter of the whole school hours. People have suggested

that we could run our schools — and I know many parents won't

be happy about this, but we could only use it in areas where we

have the agreement of the parents — through from 8 right

through to 5 if necessary. It's a suggestion which perhaps some

school boards may be willing to take up.

Also, the year-round school. We will ask the school boards

themselves if any of them are willing to attempt some of these

innovations. We'll see how they work out.

I don't intend to impose it on any one board, but I

certainly want to give a direction and I think it would be

worthwhile to try it. If we do this, we certainly have to

provide extra funds — you're quite correct.

The matter of teacher supply and demand. We have not been

sitting back idly and just waiting without any idea or thought

as to what will be the result of a sudden decrease in the class

size and more teachers being injected into the system.

Approximately a year ago, the Department of Education funded

the B.C. Research Council to develop a teacher supply-demand

model which would be capable of forecasting for immediate and

future teacher requirements in the Province of British

Columbia. After all, we're concerned that the matter of teacher

supply and demand be addressed in a qualitative as well as a

quantitive term. We do know that there is concern that if you

need a great many more teachers, we keep up the quality of the

teaching supply. That, of course, is a concern for the teachers

and for the department.

There is no question that unless we move into some of the

areas I've just been talking to you about, in September, 1974,

and for several years afterwards the total supply of teachers

available for British Columbia at this time from our university

faculties and other sources will be insufficient. It will be

insufficient to staff the vacancies occurring as a result of

the addition of new teaching positions and because of teacher

retirements and related factors, others being of course the

government commitment to reduce the classes.

Although both elementary and secondary teachers will be in

short supply, deficiencies will be most pronounced at the

secondary school level. In the secondary school level, the most

acute shortages will be in the specialty areas, including

community services, industrial education and commerce. This of

course has already been predicted. Also, of course, the further

you are removed from the lower mainland, that's where the

demand will be greater.

Now, when you speak about direction, we accept the

responsibility that we have these research figures in front of

us now. We have a responsibility to create more teachers for

the Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 1454 ]

So at the present time my department is working with the

faculties of education, having discussions on how perhaps we

can arrange for teachers to come through perhaps a little

quicker in these specialized areas.

We are considering — and of course this depends on financial

commitments — perhaps incentive grants if the teachers will

accept the fact of taking up a specific subject area which is

needed, as I pointed out: home economics, commerce, et cetera.

And perhaps even we're thinking of assisting teachers who would

commit themselves to move into the areas where it is most

difficult to get teachers.

These are the directions we are thinking on now, and I'm

hoping that before the end of the spring when we are really

faced with this we will have some of these moving for the

beginning of the year. So there are many areas to consider if

we wish to cope with an obvious short supply of teachers,

particularly in certain areas in this province.

I'll be ready to report further — maybe I won't have the

opportunity in this session of the House — through information

bulletins to the public on the progress we're making in meeting

this needed supply of teachers. We'll be working with the

faculties, with the teachers' associations and the school

trustees. We're quite aware of the problem and we're ready to

meet it.

Now the other area that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

was asking about: we had an excellent meeting with these three

university presidents. The Premier was present and we had an

excellent discussion not only on finance, but on the whole

matter of university programmes and where we expect to be going

in the future.

We have agreed to consider requests for additional operating

funds, which obviously was made to us — as the Member said he

would expect to be made at that meeting — and we have agreed to

consider this. We are quite aware that when the budget was

drawn in the fall the matter of inflationary costs was not

completely tied in with those initial estimates, and

particularly the increased area of salary agreements.

We are willing to look at a case which was put before us

quite well by the three university presidents on those

increased needs. We have told them we will consider it and we

will be informing them shortly.

We also mentioned the matter of supplementary grants and we

will be meeting with some of the university presidents and

officials on the matter of their supplementary grant requests,

as the Premier had outlined.

We also went into discussions on the whole matter of innovative

programmes; and perhaps consideration is to be given so we can budget

no longer on a one-year basis, but we are considering moving ahead into

a five-year budgetary plan. These areas were all discussed and I think

that the university presidents, by and large, were fairly satisfied.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): As a former teacher I can't resist

the opportunity to say a few words during these estimates,

especially on the salary vote of the Minister.

First of all, if I heard the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) correctly, he had made a statement that the

population of B.C. was declining and this was resulting in a

reduced population in the school system. I just want to read

some figures from Statistics Canada which I think are

interesting, not only to correct what he said but as a fact in

themselves.

These are the figures now comparing June, 1972 to June,

1973. The population of British Columbia in June of 1972 was

2,247,000, and in June of 1973 the population had increased to

2,315,000.

Births in the same period in June of 1972 were 36,861 — or

for a period of a year up to that point — and from that period

until the same month in 1973, they were 34,852. So there was a

net decline in the number of live births during that

period.

Deaths rose slightly during the same period from 17,020 to

17,783.

Since there was a net decline in births and a slight

increase in deaths, then obviously the population must be

coming from somewhere. They came from outside of the Province

of British Columbia by migration.

I would submit that that process is still continuing and we

have much evidence of that by the pressure on housing and by

the rapidly increasing work force in the province. The latest

statistics from the provincial government departments indicate

that there is an increase in the work force in the Province of

British Columbia.

So he's mistaken. People are coming to B.C. in large

numbers. But there is this fact: there is a net decline in

births in the province. This is, I think, having a stabilizing

influence to some extent on the school system. Other

influences, of course, are making necessary more teachers.

People expect a great deal more of our government,

obviously, and we want to give a lot more, so efforts will be

made to try to reduce the class size and this will mean that we

will need to have more teachers. But as far as the population

is concerned, the student population is now on the decline, or

has been on the decline. Unless there were a massive increase

in migration, this downward decline would continue.

Now the other point that the Hon. Member for Chilliwack made

was that he said there was no direction in education and that

this document, "The Public School System: Directions for

Change," because it was small, didn't have much in it.

Well, I've only been just glancing through the first two or

three

[ Page 1455 ]

pages, and I see a great deal in it.

I think that he doesn't read very well, or those with whom

he has talked to apparently don't read very well, because just

on a cursory reading one can see a great deal — certainly a

great deal that excites me. I just want to mention two or three

of the points that I've seen in this document, just glancing at

it.

First of all, the aim, the philosophy, the goal of the

Education Minister clearly is "to provide a measure of success

for every student." Well, what's wrong with that? Isn't that a

direction?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new about it?

MR. DENT: What's new about it? Now that is a good question.

What's new about it is that perhaps there was a desire

somewhere to have this happen, but there was never the

initiative taken to change the structures or to try to redesign

the system so that that would in fact happen.

Now from what the Hon. Member for Chilliwack says when he

talks about leadership or direction, I get the feeling he's

talking about needing a new Napoleon or a new Hitler, or

something of that kind: somebody who would galvanize, organize,

regimentize and everything else, and get people moving in a

certain direction — "Get thee behind me; I'll raise the banner,

and on we go." That's the kind of leadership he seems to be

talking about.

But the kind of leadership that's suggested in this document

is a leadership which centres on the students, that somehow

says that maybe the school system shouldn't be regimentizing or

leading people in this way or that way — in terms of philosophy

specifically — but rather that it should be relating to the

needs of the society which has given it birth, which has given

that educational system its existence. That is, to me, much

superior leadership and direction than that which was hinted at

by the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

The next point: in the same document, still on page 1, this

statement is made: "The student has no means of resolving any

conflict with the system; he must conform, leave voluntarily,

or be suspended." Now there are students in the galleries here,

perhaps teachers too, and I want to read that to them again.

"The student has no means of resolving any conflict with the

system; he must conform, leave voluntarily, or be suspended."

Is that true or false?

Now please don't answer it from the galleries.

But is it true? Certainly it's true. The fact is that there

are many students in the school system — and I've seen them

year after year — totally in captivity to the system and unable

to get any benefit from it whatever. Yet they're forced to

remain in it and go through this locked-step system often for

years and years and years. In fact it's a retrograde process

for their development.

In fact, a study was made once, a few years back, that

literacy that might be desired in any young person — they found

that 80 per cent of the boys in the school system failed to

achieve the Grade 8 level by the time they were in Grade 8, and

that 20 per cent of the girls failed to achieve that level.

In mathematics it was somewhat different, with the boys

having the edge and the girls having a greater disparity. But

the fact was that a large number of students, perhaps as many

as 50 per cent of all of the students, had not reached the

Grade 8 level by the time they were actually in Grade 8, and

many of them were far below that level. Some were getting

nothing.

I have personally seen students in my classes in grades 9,

10 and 11 and 12 who had not, some of them, gone beyond the

grade 3 level in some things and had lost interest far back

along the way. Yet, they were totally captivated by the system.

They were, in a sense, enslaved by the system and required to

stay with it till they could legally leave school or until

their parents would allow them to leave the system.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The direction that the Minister is offering us in this

document is that they want to resolve this problem of the fact

that these students have no means of resolving the personal

conflict that they might have with the system that has

captivated them. They must conform or leave voluntarily when

they reach that age, or be suspended.

That is an exciting direction — if the structuring of the

whole Education department system is going to make a change

there, then I'm right for it. I would ask any of the opposition

Members: would they be opposed to that? Would they be opposed

to a change in the structuring, or the redesigning of the

system so that students will no longer feel that they are in

conflict with the system and that they are prisoners of the

system?

You talk to students, those under the age of 15 and who are

in school — grades 8, 9, and 10. Ask them, "Why are you here?"

They'll say, "Because I have to come. I am forced to come." A

great many of them have this attitude. I don't say all of them,

but I would say a very substantial number of students feel that

way.

Maybe this is a truism; maybe it is something that has been

said over and over before. But it needs to be said again and

needs to be said succinctly and to be said explicitly: even the

best efforts of the present system are not effectively meeting

the educational needs of these students.

I repeat: even the best efforts of the present system are

not effectively meeting the educational

[ Page 1456 ]

needs of these students.

Every student counts, and every student should count. The

system should be interested in every student and what happens

to every student.

The goal is not as it was in the past — to divide the

students at each grade level between those who "passed" and

those who "failed". You say to the ones who passed: "My, what

nice, good students you are. You are bound to turn into

wonderful citizens." You say to the failures that you know they

are lazy, shiftless, no good so-and-sos bound to failure in

life and so on.

I'll just relate a little incident that happened when I was

teaching in Armstrong back in 1954. It was not too long after

the war and there was considerably more interest in army cadets

and so on than there is today.

I was working in my classroom one evening, preparing lessons

for the next day. Beside my classroom, they had torn down the

old skating rink building and left the concrete platform. The

army cadets were using it as a place to drill, so I could watch

out my window and see them doing these various drills for an

hour or an hour-and-a-half each evening, about twice a

week.

I was flabbergasted when I first saw them go out drilling — it was

the first time I had seen them — because the corporals,

the sergeants and sergeant-majors and the lieutenants were all

boys from our school who were doing the drilling, who were in

charge of the activities of the evening under the supervision

of an adult officer, and doing an excellent job, and they were

the most useless, shiftless, lazy, rebellious students in the

school.

Here they were, acting very differently in this other

situation. One boy in particular had been written off by

virtually every teacher in the school as having no potential

for success whatever. He cheated; he had everything wrong with

him that you could hope to imagine. And no thanks to our

educational system, but thanks to a local church minister in

the community, to the army cadets and to a few other interested

citizens in the community, he turned into a very fine citizen

with a very high level of responsibility, and was honoured when

he became the lieutenant-cadet of his particular group of army

cadets. He became the leader of his young people's group in the

church.

But it was no thanks to that school system, or to me, or to any of

the other teachers in that school. There was something very wrong. The

thing that was wrong was that our system was designed to always teach

the average student; to always get so many papers marked every day; to

see so many kids get As and so many people get Bs and so many people

get C pluses. You pile them up at the end of the day and say "I have

done a great job because there were 3 As. The ones down at the bottom

you just forget about; you just pretend they are not there.

The point of this direction in education here is clear: to

try to meet the educational requirements of every young person.

That is the goal I can support 100 per cent, and that's the

direction.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I have a few

questions to pose to the Minister, arising from responses she

gave to the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

She spoke of the work done for the department by the

Research Council in providing a model with respect to teacher

requirements. She indicated that she was aware that we were

facing a period when teachers would be in short supply. We are,

of course, pleased that the Minister is aware, but the

questions are: how many are we short? How long is it going to

take us to cure that situation? Will we cure that situation by

obliging school boards to advertise for teachers outside of the

Province of British Columbia, as has happened in the past, or

does she foresee that we will be able to meet this need in time

from sources of supply which we have in the province?

I would also like to know in connection with the annual

requirement for teacher employment whether the Minister could

indicate the extent to which the department has examined into

the number of teaching positions which became vacant due to

attrition in the school system.

I would like to know if the Minister can advise the

committee if the anticipated 1,000 positions in British

Columbia, which will be vacant because of normal attrition, is

due to retirement of teachers having reached retirement age. Or

are there other causes such as the dissatisfaction of members

of the teaching profession with the educational system in

British Columbia? Therefore the desire to leave the profession

for other endeavours, either entirely or on a part-time basis.

To what extent are we being faced with a situation in British

Columbia where teachers are leaving the school system and then

making themselves available as substitutes or part-time relief

in our system? That's the 1,000 that we must replace by reason

of so-called normal attrition.

It is anticipated that in the coming year — the Member for

Chilliwack has mentioned this — that improvements in the class

size, the teacher-pupil ratio, based upon the standards which

the Minister has recommended, will require an additional 1,600

teachers to be engaged by the various school districts in the

province. I would like to know whether the Minister agrees that

that is the number necessary. Could she indicate to the

committee the additional costs that will be faced by the total

educational system in British Columbia by reason of that

proposal alone?

I've heard some fantastic figures; I have heard figures

which would suggest that this proposal would

[ Page 1457 ]

increase the educational costs to the government of British

Columbia by about $30 million. I would like to know the extent

to which the Minister has considered this factor, and the

impact that that kind of expenditure will have upon the ability

of this government to assist in sharing the burden of

educational cost, rising each year as it is.

More importantly, however, than those particular matters — I

do hope the Minister will be able to respond — is the White

Paper that we were given yesterday.

I would like to know from the Minister if the presentation

of the White Paper at this time is an admission by her that her

18 months in charge of the Department of Education has been an

abject failure. That's the only conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that

I can draw from this kind of document coming before us at this

particular time.

I must say that when the Minister undertook the

responsibilities in the late fall of 1972 and began to make

pronouncements as to the direction which the Department of

Education would take under her Ministry, I, as did many others

in the community — teachers and school board trustees alike — looked

forward with anticipation to some change in the way in

which the Department of Education has discharged its function

under previous Ministers.

It appeared that some innovation at the departmental level

was to be practised. The Minister was prepared to take a

serious look at problems affecting education in this province.

The start would be made on the redress of problems which under

the previous administration were alleged to be insoluble.

I appreciate that this necessitated a shift of emphasis in

the department away from the Deputy Minister and the senior

staff level. It was interesting that the Minister was prepared

to move in that direction. But it now appears that the Minister

has reversed herself and that, in spite of all the task forces

and committees which have been established under her authority,

we are now returning to the Department of Education and to its

senior staff for the changes which we are still awaiting.

Nothing makes it clearer than a consideration of the White

Paper (The Public School System: Directions for Change) we have

before us.

It's interesting that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent),

in supporting this White Paper and congratulating the Minister

on its production, has dealt only with those aspects of the

system as the Minister sees it today — the same system that was

in existence when she became the Minister 18 months ago. But

the Member for Skeena has not addressed himself, as the Members

in this committee must address themselves and as the Minister

must address herself, to the

section of the White Paper "What

Must Be Changed."

If you look carefully at "What Must Be Changed" as seen through the

eyes of the Minister you see a clear declaration that in 18 months

nothing has been done. We are just beginning now to approach the

problems and not even the solutions to the problems of education.

When I consider how hard school trustees, teachers and

interested parents have worked over past years and are still

working today in an attempt to improve the educational system

and meet some of the concerns which the Member for Skeena

mentioned on the part of the student, it's shocking to have the

Minister say some of the things she says.

"What Must Be Changed. 1. Authority and

Responsibility." In

this segment of "What Must Be Changed " the Minister makes this

outstanding pronouncement:

"Professional educational staff must be deployed in

the

actual teaching situation or in supportive positions."

Classic. What it means, if I may translate, is that teachers

are supposed to be in the classroom teaching or occupying other

positions in the school which will support those teachers who

are in the classroom teaching.

Is this not what is happening today? Is the Minister

prepared to indicate that this is not what is happening today?

Are we striving under this new direction for change to reach a

situation that already exists today? Is that what the Minister

is telling us in that regard?

Point No. 2 in "What Must Be

Changed. 2. Programme."

"It is the responsibility of the Department of

Education, in

conjunction with the board of school trustees and local

schools, to provide a comprehensive programme for all

students."

Mr. Chairman, for heaven's sake, what have we been doing for

all these 102 years that we've had the Public Schools

Act in the Province of British Columbia if it hasn't been

to charge the Department of Education in conjunction with the

board of school trustees and local schools to provide the

programme of education in British Columbia? Is this a direction

for change: to bring about what we've been required to do under

the laws of this province for the last 102 years?

I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to take the

committee into her confidence and, in connection with the

matter of "Programmes," tell me what she means when she

says,

"The Department of Education should establish

guidelines for

programme and content to ensure that every student in British

Columbia has an opportunity to participate equitably in the

programme."

Those are the words the Minister used. She goes on to

explain those words as follows:

"That is, each student will be offered a core

programme, the

intent of which will be to

[ Page 1458 ]

ensure the development of functional literacy."

Perhaps it might assist me in understanding the White Paper

if the Minister would indicate what she understands to be

functional literacy.

I must admit I have concern, as do many parents, about

literacy of our students as they leave our school system. We

are told by educators, certainly in the secondary schools and

also in the universities, that the students can neither read

nor write, cannot communicate through the written word. If by this the

Minister suggests it is some functional illiteracy perhaps I

can understand. But I would like the Minister to indicate if my

assessment of the meaning of those words is accurate.

If they are, would she then go on to explain what she means

when she says,

"Functional literacy can be developed and encouraged

through a programme which is meaningful to

students. Therefore, programmes could include subjects such as

family life education, consumer education, Canadian studies,

structure of government, environmental education, economics,

law, labour education, alternative languages, the culture and

heritage of British Columbia, art and music appreciation, and

physical fitness "?

Would the Minister please indicate how she sees, in these

changing directions, those subjects will give functional

literacy to the students as they leave our school system?

She also talks about the need for alternative programmes in

our schools. I fully support this. All programmes cannot be

made interesting, acceptable, nor would they be desirable for

each student who enters the school system. But the Minister

says, which may seem to be a strange thing:

"The school curriculum must not be organized so that

any

single body of information to be learned and measured is

presented to students, whether or not the information relates

to the students' needs."

Would the Minister please explain: if the information

relates to the students' needs, should not the school

curriculum be organized so that the information to be learned

and measured according to those needs should be provided to the

students through the curriculum?

The third heading, under "What Must Be Changed," is "Right to

Education." Everybody talks about rights. Certainly so far as young

people are concerned, the right to education must be paramount in

anyone's mind who is considering the Department of Education.

The

Minister says: "Under present legislation, the system has no legal

responsibility to meet these needs." Have we been deluding ourselves,

Madam Minister, over all these years that the public school system in

the Province of British Columbia carried on under the Public Schools

Act , plus our universities and, more recently, our community colleges

have been provided without any legal responsibility on the part of

government, boards of school trustees, and the community at large? Have

we just been doing this all by reason of whim and not in the

fulfilment of any legal responsibility? If that's the case, and we're

to have a direction for change, would the Minister please indicate how

she intends to make this a legal responsibility on the part of

government and the citizens of this province, and how working with

other government departments may bring about the effective legislation

which she apparently thinks is lacking?

Number four is the organization and administration of the

school system in the Province of British Columbia. I gather

from what the Minister says that she is concerned about the

number of school districts and whether or not the

administrative arrangements of this province's school districts

is effective. I must agree that this is one area that must be

looked at and looked at carefully.

It has been approached by Ministers who preceded her in

office, and some significant studies have been made with

respect to the melding of school districts and the

reorganization of their boundaries. I would like to know

whether the Minister proposes to continue any studies in this

particular line and how soon we may expect that a concerted

effort will be brought to the rationalization of apparent

administrative confusion.

Previous reports concerning amalgamation of school districts

have suggested that each one is a separate case and that before

any amalgamation should take place a careful study on the

implications of amalgamation, as it may affect one or two or

even three school districts, should be undertaken. Therefore

it's a piecemeal approach to administrative rationalization. Is

this still the department's policy and, if so, how does the

Minister see that policy being brought into action?

The last of the directions for change is one which has

bothered every citizen, every member of the board of trustees

and, I'm sure, every teacher in the Province of British

Columbia. Certainly it has bothered every taxpayer. That is the

change in direction required with respect to finance. This

brings me back to my first remarks a few moments ago to the

Minister. Would she tell us how much more it's going to cost

just to bring about the programme announced by her for

reduction in class size?

What the Minister has said in the White Paper on finance is

most illuminating:

"The government recognizes that in order to meet the

educational needs of every student in the system, resources

must be distributed on an unequal basis."

This, Mr. Chairman, as she will recognize, indicates

[ Page 1459 ]

a very significant change of position on the part of the

Department of Education — if the Minister is quoting accurately — on the part of the government from what we have seen in this

province, certainly for the last 20 years, on the distribution

of resources on an unequal basis.

The Minister goes on to say that these changes will require

a major review of educational finance. May I ask the Minister:

when will that review begin, by whom will the review be made,

will it involve Members of this assembly or will the study be

carried out by persons selected by the Minister or by the

cabinet?

The last thing I have to say concerning this White Paper is

just to quote what the Minister under the heading of "Finance"

said in parentheses: "An equitable education finance system

should be developed." Amen to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No. The Minister's on her feet. Is the

Minister going to respond?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We're waiting for the Minister

who's on her feet to speak. Apparently she's mopping up the

flower pots.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yup.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd like to raise a question which comes

up frequently and which we really never had a satisfactory

reply from this government on. That is the question of

independent schools. We've had a statement from the government

that the door is closed but not locked, whatever that means. I

don't know what it means and I would like to have some

clarification.

The plain truth of the matter is that we've had far too much

avoidance of this issue from this government and, of course,

the previous one as well. It's a well-known fact that the

previous Premier supported the concept of assistance to

independent schools prior to his election in 1951 and thereupon

changed his mind. Since then, until that party was defeated,

nothing came from that party which would indicate any change of

mind. Now I understand they may be changing their mind

again.

The same is true with the present government. There was not

a clear position and many people who are parents of children

who are attending independent schools are concerned, because

they felt they would get some improvement of the financial

situation in particular that they face due to the fact that

they're taxed by the public school system and at the same time

they have elected to send their children to generally religious

schools.

The fact is that statements such as "the door is shut but not

locked" perhaps is simply playing games with these people and their

hopes for the future. The fact is that they bear a very heavy financial

burden.

If the Minister and her government intend to make changes,

it's only fair that the parents who are in this situation are

given some indication of government policy. If it is to be a

case of the government changing its mind, well let's have

indicated to us what is happening, and let's have indicated to

us the proposals that they are considering.

The present situation where private or at least independent

schools are closing — such as St. Ann's Academy in Victoria — because

of financial difficulty is deplorable. The schools in

question are providing education for some 23,000 students in

the Province of British Columbia. If these students were thrown

onto the public school system, you'd have a proper crisis,

Madam Minister. The fact is they are providing a service which

would otherwise cost substantial amounts of money from the

public treasury.

The fact that frequently people within the public school

system point out that it's the independent school system with

its lack of bureaucracy which is often the most imaginative in

pioneering new programmes should not be overlooked either. For

example, the proposals for language instruction and the joint

federal-provincial agreements in this area simply were not

implemented in the public school system at all with the speed

or with the imagination that they were in the independent

school system. There are reasons for this. Perhaps some of the

Sisters who teach in the independent school system are more

capable teachers of French and perhaps other foreign languages

as well. The fact is that they have frequently demonstrated

their ability to respond quickly and respond imaginatively,

come forward with new programmes and do a great deal at less

cost than the public school system.

If our public school system is ever to be changed for the

good, and I now refer the Minister to her own White Paper,

surely this spur that the independent school system provides to

compete and do as well as at least the public school system is

something which she should not overlook either. It has a

positive effect on the public school system which has been too

often ignored.

Mr. Chairman, I received a few letters. This is dated

February 8:

"Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is my first year at an independent school. My

marks have improved and, with a religious course, I have learned to

help disabled people."

She hasn't learned to spell "disabled" but that's not a

major problem.

"I've always before this gone to a public school, and

these public schools I have been picked on

[ Page 1460 ]

by teachers and had detentions if I'm late to my

class, even if I'm only a few seconds late. At the school that I'm at,

there is no punishment and I have learned to be on time and to keep out

of trouble.

"I may not know how to write a nice letter, but I do

know

this independent school is just great. And I'm not just writing

this to get your vote. It's all a matter of the plain simple

truth.

"P.S. Happy Valentine's Day."

Well, I'd like to thank Beth for sending me her Valentine's

wishes and also for the letter, which, I think, is a good

indication that students themselves can appreciate in many

instances the fact that an independent school is less

bureaucratic and does in many cases provide opportunities for

students who have difficulties or are somewhat out of step with

the general average of society. It does provide them with the

opportunity for an education which may better suit their

particular needs. I feel it is grossly unfair for parents not

to receive any assistance whatsoever.

In the Minister's White Paper she talks about "What Must Be

Changed," programmes, flexibility in organization,

programme alternatives, programme contents, et cetera. Many of

these areas are being pioneered in this province by the

independent school system.

Another letter I'd like to quote from at this stage is a

letter dated February 15:

"Dear Mr. Anderson:

I would like to voice a complaint with you regarding

private schools. Last year I sent my little girl to Tillicum public

school. During three months she learned absolutely nothing. I had no

idea the child was having this problem nor was I notified by the

teacher until the beginning of December. By the time I was notified she

had fallen hopelessly behind. The room was divided into groups and she

was in the lowest group possible.

"She is a quiet, small child. Several times she was

knocked

down in mud puddles coming out of the school, her lunch kit was

broken on two occasions by older students, and a book was taken

from her. School left her terrified. I coached her at home and

she improved somewhat and limped through grade 1.

"This term we enrolled her in St. Joseph's School.

This

child has actually flourished so well that one would not

believe it was the same child. The devotion of the teachers is

wonderful. Today she is one of the very best readers in the

class, and is healthy and well-adjusted. The children are

well-behaved and taught respect for one another.

"Last year I paid $5,200 in taxes to the city. I would

like to know why you cannot designate my school taxes to go to that

particular school. I have two more children who will be of school age

soon. I resent having to pay tuition at another school when my children

are not using the school system provided. I feel that St. Joseph's is

far superior, so why can't my share of the school taxes go to the

school where I send my children?

"I sincerely hope you will give this matter your

immediate attention."

Well, I replied to the gentleman, and I'm trying at this

stage to give it the attention that he thinks it deserves and I

think it deserves, too.

It seems grossly unfair for people to be taxed for a service

and, at the same time, have to provide additional financing.

The state itself saves substantial sums of money from their

decision to send their children to independent schools. The

state itself has the advantage of an independent school system

which is experimental. and innovative. The state itself

benefits from having a system which deals with the child who is

not perhaps of the average or normal 95 per cent of the

children in the province. I think it is deplorable that these

people are not given straight answers to their requests for

financial assistance.

I think we should, Madam Minister, be considering providing

assistance for capital construction and, in particular,

operations. Obviously the schools in question must meet

provincial standards and must be subjected to inspection.

That's fair enough if public money is to be used.

But there is no question that the independent schools fill a

real role in British Columbia; there is no question they save

the public of British Columbia some millions of dollars, many

millions of dollars; and there is no question that they are

getting the short end of the stick from this government just as

they did from the previous one.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on what

proposals she might have to assist in this area.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a few questions

about the former commissioner of education in British

Columbia.

In November, 1972, I got a press release from the Minister's

office saying:

"Articles about John Bremer and his work have appeared

national magazines and journals: Time , Life , Saturday

Review , The Atlantic , Reader's Digest , Media and Methods , The

Scholastic Teacher , Orbit , Phi Delta Kappa , The Times

Educational Supplement . He himself contributes to various

publications, including the New York Times and the

Saturday Review . He is quoted and discussed in books,

most recently in Silverman's Crisis in the Classroom . He

was the subject of a paper presented at the 1972 meeting of the

Comparative and

[ Page 1461 ]

International Education Society of Canada."

Mr. Chairman, I was impressed with that release. I had

raised a question or two in the House and the Minister leaped

to the defence of Mr. Bremer. When this press release came

along I knew we had somebody who really knew what he was doing

in the field of education. A quality product.

Now we come to this past winter and the television show. The

Minister was in the east. Someone who was very concerned with

education and a strong supporter of Mr. Bremer was one of the

moderators on the panel, a gentleman from Victoria named Mr.

Walter Donald. He asked the Premier a question about

educational change. There's a long, confused answer here and

I'm not going to bother reading that because it would be

embarrassing to the Premier.

Finally Mr. Donald broke in and said: "You're not giving

them a forum. I think, quite frankly, the commissioner of

education is window-dressing." This man that had been quoted in

The Times , and Life and all these places.

"Barrett: 'I think he's been a bit of a failure, and I

think

that, you know, we've already taken steps to recognize that,

you know. That approach was a bit of a flop, and I admit that

publicly.'"

I'm quoting word for word. You really pay a penalty, you

days.

"Moderator Jack Wasserman: 'Has he been placed on

notice?'

"Barrett: 'Well, ah, you can interpret that any way

you

want, but, you know, that was a bit of a flop.'

"Wasserman: 'Is he fired?'

"Barrett: 'Well….'

"Wasserman: 'Or are you moving him sideways?'

"Jumble of voices,

"Barrett: 'Well, he's been a….it's been a bit of a

flop.

Okay? You know, we'd hoped that out of that kind of dialogue

we'd get some kind of direction. You know, it's interesting. I

wish I knew. I wish we did know. The perplexity of the problem

I think can be best answered by the kind of hostility that we

got from some segments of the population when we said there

will be no more strapping of children….'"

Well, I'm not going to go on quoting from the erudition of

the Premier. But something happened between the very lucid

description of John Bremer in that press release — the

magazines, national and international, that had quoted his

achievements — and the somewhat less than articulate interview

with the Premier indicating that he'd been, ah, a bit of a

flop, you know.

The Premier said the matter of educational changes has been

kicked around in the cabinet. I'd like to know if Mr. Bremer

was kicked around in the cabinet. He was strapped on television — executed. You might say the "censored" was kicked out of him.

What the Premier says inside the chamber is different from what

he says outside the chamber, we know that. Well, I don't think

he'd want his corridor remarks to be quoted in here; certainly

I wouldn't quote them.

Mr. Chairman, we've had no real explanation from either the

Premier or the Minister of Education as to what this

commissioner was doing, in their minds, that led him to be a

bit of a flop in British Columbia;

whereas the press releases

issued by that Department of Education indicated what a

fantastic success he had been everywhere else.

My question is this: was Mr. John Bremer out of step or are

the Premier and the Minister of Education out of step? Who is

right about educational change, Mr. Chairman: Time ,

Life , the New York Times Supplement , Saturday

Review , the author of Crisis in the Classroom , The

Atlantic , Reader's Digest — all these people who apparently

said Mr. Bremer was right in his approach — or is it the

Premier and the Minister of Education who are wrong and don't

understand?

I think it's up to the Minister of Education to give us a

pretty frank and full account of: what the expectations were

for Mr. Bremer; exactly what it was that was kicked around in

cabinet; why it was essential to terminate him and his

commission in mid-stream; what alternatives her department is

putting forward that are better; and finally and most

importantly, what excuse the Minister can give for wasting the

taxpayers' money of British Columbia in continuing this man's

salary.

If he violated the terms of his contract, if he established

that he was incompetent, then the Minister has grounds for his

dismissal. If he was competent and is competent, the Minister

should have some other assignment that makes full use of his

talents and justifies the continuance of payments to him. What

is intolerable is to have the public's money used as a payoff

to avoid political embarrassment. That's what the Minister has

to explain: why the taxpayers' money should be used in this

fashion; because the taxpayers' money is being used in this

fashion right now. It started on March 1.

We of course will be asking similar questions of the

Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) when his estimates

come up, because in the ICBC public money is being used as a

payoff. It's intolerable.

Mr. Chairman, I saw the progress report put out by Mr. John

Bremer. I read it and I know others did too. It received high

praise from Dr. John McDonald, who was formerly president of

the University of British Columbia anti is now chairman of the

universities

[ Page 1462 ]

commission in Ontario. I had occasion to discuss it with

him. I don't know where this piece of garbage came from that

was tabled in the House yesterday: "The Public School System:

Directions for Change."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I don't think that it's

appropriate in this place to use a word of that nature to

describe a document tabled in this House.

MR. McGEER: Well, I think it's rubbish. I think it's

nonsense. I don't think it's worth the paper it's printed

on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member may criticize

the contents, but a document tabled in the House should be…at least, the language should be suitable for this place.

MR. McGEER: I think it's appropriate for the document. Now

it may no