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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

85 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Dam construction on Columbia River. Mr. Chabot — 85

Regulations re payment of Autoplan premiums.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 86

Safety stickers on government cars. Mr. Morrison — 87

Mill rate reductions on real property. Mr. Curtis — 87

Lifting of Delta wildlife management reserve. Hon. Mr. Lorimer —

Government acquisition of personal care home. Mr. McClelland — 88

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Mr. Gardom — 88

Mr. Wallace — 91

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 97

Mrs. Jordan — 99

Mr. Fraser — 104

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 107

Mr. Smith — 107

Division on amendment — 109

Mr. Wallace — 109

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I've just asked your permission, and obtained

it, to increase the light in the chamber for 15 minutes for an

experiment. The television technical committee is working on it, if

that is agreed to by the Hon. Members.

I may also point out that much concern about the lighting is going

on at the moment. We apparently are violating the Workmen's

Compensation Act and the regulations by having less than the required

amount for conference and interviewing rooms or desk areas with no

office work involved. I've had complaints that the lights are too

bright, but I'm afraid that the Workmen's Compensation Board may be

arresting me at any moment. So I hope you will bear with us.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

DAM CONSTRUCTION ON COLUMBIA RIVER

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Minister of Municipal Affairs as director of B.C. Hydro: I was

wondering if the Minister could tell me if a decision has been made to

construct a dam on the Columbia River below the present Mica Dam.

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, there's been no agreement on that at all — no decision at the present time.

Mr. Chabot: No decision. Then I have a supplementary

question. Apparently a decision has been made, and an announcement has

been made by one Cass-Beggs in which he informed the city council of

Revelstoke that speculations have now ended and the dam will be built

here to supplement other B.C. Hydro power projects already established

on the Columbia.

"A formal announcement of the Revelstoke dam is

expected to be made in Victoria during the current session of the

Legislature. Cass-Beggs informally leaked the news of the local dam

project after city council requested Hydro intentions regarding the

possibility of the Revelstoke project."

Now that Cass-Beggs has announced that there's going to be a

Revelstoke dam and that construction will be finished prior to 1980, I

was wondering if the Minister would like to change his answer.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: No, I won't change my answer. There hasn't been a decision made by the board and there's been no formal announcement.

Mr. Chabot: Well, a supplementary question. There's been a

very formal announcement made by one general manager of B.C. Hydro. Is

there a conflict of opinions relative to the construction of dams in

British Columbia between the directors of Hydro and their general

managers? If there is, is this going to be rectified by disciplinary

action?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question is rhetorical for one thing, and it's also argumentative.

Mr. Chabot: Is the Premier going to fire him on television?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Second Member for Victoria. Is this on the same subject, Hon. Member?

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): No, it's on another subject.

Mr. Speaker: There's another supplementary here from the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it would

appear that there is some thought about building this dam. I would like

to ask the Minister if a study is being conducted as to the effects

this storage of water will have on the environment of that particular

area.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Yes, there have been studies done on it.

There have been environmental studies. The studies were commenced some

years ago and have been going on. But as I mentioned earlier, there's

been no decision made by the board of yet.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Are the

studies complete at the present time, and are copies available of the

results of that study? Who was the study conducted by and how much did

it cost?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I can't answer those questions as to who did the study and so on, but I'll take it as notice.

Mr. Phillips: Well, is the study complete? Are copies available? I'd like to have a copy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question at a time, please — that is a rule.

Mr. Phillips: Well, is the study complete?

[ Page 86 ]

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I'll take that as notice.

Mr. Phillips: You don't know whether it's complete or not, then. Yes or no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Taking it as notice doesn't say whether I know or whether I don't know. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the Minister can answer yes or no!

Mr. Speaker: I think that it's time for something else, surely.

REGULATIONS RE PAYMENT

OF AUTOPLAN PREMIUMS

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications: In view of the fact that

people who have premiums with ICBC at $116 and lower are unable to take

advantage of the Royal Bank financing plan, and as many of my

constituents who are sober, law-abiding drivers are in this relatively

low rate, may I ask him whether or not he has considered the

possibility of these people who don't have the money between now and

the end of the month putting in post-dated cheques?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Yes, we have considered that. It is my understanding that some of the

agents are now doing this, but there's no way that we can think of by

which the corporation can accommodate that particular situation. Some

of the agents are doing it, I understand.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the agents are

capable of doing this, may I ask whether or not the information on

these post-dated cheques is going down to the computer in Atlanta,

Georgia? If so, what situation do these agents have if some of these

cheques don't turn out to be good ones?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'd say there were two questions there.

Does information go to Atlanta, Georgia? My information is no. It's

also my information that agents are simply going to do this up until

the 15th of the month, which is a two-week period before they're due.

The next question: the cheques are made out to the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, they're not made out to the agents.

The problem of cheques of any kind is the possibility of NSF cheques,

which could be considerable.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understand that while the agents are

apparently holding these cheques for ICBC, ICBC itself can't hold the

cheques until the date. It's a very curious situation.

May I ask the Minister then as a further supplementary whether he's

made any contingency plans to provide automobile insurance for B.C.

drivers in the event that the Autoplan does not meet its February 28

deadline? Has he made any contingency plans with the private companies,

or has he had discussions with the private companies on the possibility

of failure to meet the February 28 deadline?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: The private insurance companies are suing us right now. You may not be aware that there's a court case.

No, February 28 is the due date. We've urged people to go in early.

There are 1,000-odd offices that are available to the people of this

province. The people in many cases are doing exactly the same thing as

they have always done with regard to their licence renewals — they wait

until the last day.

Mr. Phillips: Because of the money involved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, all right, but money or no money, I

have been in Victoria on the last day of February every year for more

than 20 years. I have seen the line-ups over here every year that last

two or three days, and there are only 80 motor vehicle offices. Now

there are 1,000 offices where they can obtain the service. I was

talking to a very big agent from Nanaimo who used to be a Member of

this House, and he says he'll have no problems at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I don't think it's a debate. Just a simple answer is required to a simple question.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Supplementary on the

same: I'd like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, how the ICBC or any

administrative group the size of the ICBC could handle roughly a

million cheques in the last two or three days of the month to

successfully launch an insurance plan.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, first of all, it won't be a million

cheques in the last two or three days of the month. The latest figures

I have indicate that there are at least 400,000 in already.

Mr. Gardom: You said only 150,000.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, that is what a spokesman for the agent said a week ago. In that

[ Page 87 ]

week a great many more have come in, and there's

still three weeks to go. If the people go in the regular way there's no

problem. I wish you people would stop being so pessimistic.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the same Minister: will the people who are entitled to rebate be receiving interest on those rebates?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: There was a full release, I think, made

yesterday on the whole matter — that's my information. There was a

release made yesterday which outlined all of the procedures with regard

to rebate — who was entitled to it and the conditions under which it

will be given.

Mr. Gardom: Yes or no — interest on rebates.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: My recollection is no.

Mr. Gardom: Is the government receiving interest on the money

on those prepaid premiums which have been in excess of the amounts they

should have paid?

Mr. Speaker: The First Member for Victoria.

Mr. Gardom: I did ask the Minister a question.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I told you there was no interest going to be paid. That's my understanding.

Mr. Gardom: I asked you, Mr. Minister, whether or not the government is receiving interest on those premiums now. Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'll check on it and find out.

SAFETY STICKERS

ON GOVERNMENT CARS

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question also to the Minister of Transport. Recently I

noticed that there was a Vega parked on the Causeway Esso service

station, licence number VAB950, owned by the British Columbia

government, and that particular car has no safety sticker on it and no

dealer temporary sticker. My question is: do we have a new policy

exempting government vehicles from safety stickers?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Could I have the number again?

Mr. Morrison: VAB950. It's a Vega and it's normally parked at

the Causeway Esso service station, replacing the Chevrolet you used to

keep there.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Are you inferring that that is my car?

Mr. Morrison: No, sir, I am not inferring it is your car (Laughter).

MILL RATE REDUCTIONS

ON REAL PROPERTY

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Municipal Affairs: with reference to his letter of January 29 on real

property assessment, 1974 — a letter sent to all mayors and councils in

the Province of British Columbia indicating that an increase in mill

rates should be held to a minimum, in view of higher assessment

revenues — would the Minister indicate whether, in view of a statutory

10-mill limit in unorganized areas, similar action will be taken with

respect to real property in unorganized areas? In other words, will the

mill rate be reduced in the unorganized areas not covered by

municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: (mike not on) ...my jurisdiction and I

would suggest that maybe you should speak to the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) or the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams) in

regard to that.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct the question correctly, then, to the Minister of Finance?

Hon. D. Barrett (Minister of Finance): I'll take that as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister has some other matter he wishes to raise, I understand.

LIFTING OF DELTA

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT RESERVE

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Yes, I have. I wish to make mention of an

answer that I gave yesterday to the question of the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). I quote what I stated: "My understanding

is that the Wildlife people" — and this is in connection with the

wildlife reserve at Roberts Bank — "were in consultation, were in

agreement with the change. I personally didn't discuss it with the

Wildlife people, but I understand that it was done."

On reviewing this, I found that it was not done and so I wanted to

bring this to the attention of the House so I would not have misled

them. However, this has been under review and there will be an

announcement made within the next few days regarding this.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I'll thank

[ Page 88 ]

the Minister for clarification of his statement because I too was aware that it was in error.

I do think there is

another matter that may still be in error, and that is that his

response indicated that the provincial Fish and Wildlife Branch had

been consulted. I believe there is still some question there, if he

would clarify that.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: That's what I'm referring to here.

Mrs. Jordan: But I think what is important here, Mr. Minister....

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: I wanted to ask you: will you please check with

these people? Will there be a waiting period until the environmental

studies have been done, as has been requested until the wildlife

management programmes have been studied, and will there be public

hearings that the people, the environmental council, and the council of

Delta...

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Which question does the Hon. Member wish the Minister to answer?

Mrs. Jordan: ...have asked for? Will this be carried out

before there is any development taking place on that land or it is used

for any other purpose?

Mr. Speaker: Which question does the Hon. Member wish the

Minister to answer? I don't want any mistakes coming in the future

because of three questions asked at once.

Mrs. Jordan: I didn't ask three questions, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: As I mentioned earlier, the matter is under

study by the people in the Wildlife and the Minister in charge of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, in which jurisdiction this actually

comes. As I've mentioned earlier, there will be further announcements

with regard to the whole picture before very many days have gone by.

Mrs. Jordan: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Should it not, perhaps, be directed to the appropriate Minister?

Mrs. Jordan: If Mr. Speaker could arrange to have him attend the House to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker: That is something that each Minister must do on his own.

GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION

OF PERSONAL CARE HOME

Mr. McClelland (Langley): My question is to the Minister of

Health. Would the Minister advise me whether or not the department is

in the process of taking over or otherwise acquiring the personal care

home which is under construction in Langley?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I'll have

to take that as notice. I know nothing of the situation. Is it an

intermediate care, personal care, or what?

Mr. McClelland: A personal care home, being constructed by the Langley Personal Care Society.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: It would be most unlikely, Mr. Speaker. We do

go to level in some pilot situations where we're working with

intermediate care, but not below that level. Personal care is really

boarding homes. I would imagine that what has happened is that the

provincial government has financed it, but it would be in the hands of

the society, nothing to do with us.

Mr. McClelland: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could, I'd just like

to ask the Minister to go back to his original suggestion and take it

as notice, because I think there is more involved than that. If he

would please take it as notice, I'd appreciate that.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I've a

prize that I'm prepared to give to anyone in this House, and that prize

is the collection of The Wit and The Rhetoric of Robert Stanfield,

Volume 1, printed on the head of a pin. (Laughter.) I'm prepared to

give that to anyone who can establish that yesterday's activities in

this House really enhanced the vocation, avocation, or the profession —

call it what you will — of a contemporary politician, because I don't

think it did.

It's just one very good example why the general public have become

exceptionally skeptical and have developed in so many cases a very

negative attitude to the whole political process. But be that as it

may, Mr. Speaker, it's still the job of the public to reject those who

have not fulfilled their objectives and support those who will. I think

perhaps it's more than the job of the public, it's definitely their

solemn responsibility, and if they're not prepared to back and to vote

for the most plausible option open to them, or perhaps create options

that are more

[ Page 89 ]

favourable to them than the ones that exist at the present time, then they may as well save their breath to cool their porridge.

I think it would be the message of every single Member of this House

to all of those people in North Vancouver–Capilano today that they

exercise their franchise and vote for who they will, but indeed vote.

I'd like to congratulate the New Democratic Party very much for

winning their first — and their last — election in the Province of

British Columbia. I'm referring to the unanimous victory of the Deputy

Speaker (Mr. Dent) and I think that was quite an accomplishment on his

part.

The non-confidence motion yesterday was essentially a political

stratagem. It was somewhat unimaginative, and I'd have to say that it's

by perhaps luck over design that it's got any meat in it at all. They

seem to get the ball on the one-yard line, and then solidly advance to

the rear for the rest of the game. But those who have been in the House

for a little while are somewhat accustomed to this kind of gear-fog and

well recognize its source.

I think perhaps yesterday he might have been known as "Confident

Dan, the Non-Confidence Man,"

whereas today he's known as

"Non-Confident Dan, the Confidence Man." (Laughter.)

But, you know, as the strings were pulled the performance followed. As the strings were pulled the performance followed.

But the meat of the motion, Mr. Speaker, which so far has been very

skilfully concealed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, is this — and it

talks about greater centralization controls: Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition has now decided to enunciate very clearly and loudly

throughout the Province of British Columbia that they do not like the

socialist direction in this regard, forgetting, perhaps that their

centrality of control was by choking off both the money supply and the

modern concepts of social service.

Your centrality of control is by choking off individual enterprise

and substituting government enterprise — substituting for free

competitive enterprise, non-free, non-competing, non-enterprising

government action. And to me, to us — indeed, I say to anyone of

liberal (small-l liberal) philosophy — neither is right.

This is why, I have to say, the majority of people in the Province

of British Columbia are parting company with the socialists. Your

attitude is to put it all into the facility. The attitude of the

majority of the people in B.C. is to keep as much out of the facility

as possible. Let the private sector do the job wherever it can. Have

government set the guidelines and set the standards and supervise, but

please do not let it administer everything.

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party, and

particularly the elected Members of that party, are very falsely

interpreting the minority mandate when they conclude that it has given

them an almost rajah-like right to control and designate and regulate

the economic activities of everyone in the province. Regulating how

people almost can earn; regulating their vocational options, and their

rate of return. Regulating how they can save — or perhaps a better

phrase is how they cannot save — which is becoming an extremely

difficult thing in this day and age in this province. The fiscal

policies, their land policies, their succession and estate tax policies

have contributed to the demise of savings...and regulating how people

should spend. Controlling utility and commodity prices.

So it's going to end up, Mr. Speaker, without any question of a

doubt, that the only game in town is going to be the government game —

just like insurance. Force all the people to play your way, or just

lower the boom with fines. There's one word that the NDP has forgotten,

and it's a very, very important word, and a democratically-sacred word:

that's the word "freedom" and "freedom of choice".

What better examples of the abuse of control than in the field of

insurance, which is creating so much crisis and havoc in the province

today. There we found a lawful, tax-paying, non-polluting vocation and

they close the doors. They expropriated them without compensation,

without appeal and, for all practical purposes, as the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) well knows, without proper access to the courts.

And I think it has been a complete denial of natural justice not only

to the industry, but to the people of this province, because you have

denied the people freedom of choice. And that's truly just

banana-republic stuff.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): The Allstate American Company is now suing us.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, never mind the suit. Why should they have to

sue you to be engaged in a lawful vocation in the Province of British

Columbia in this century? Why? Why should they have to do that?

And you know there are people, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Attorney-General, who say: "Remove the socialists at any price." Remove

them at any price. I'd say that "any-price" deals are no good — be it

removing socialists or be it removing free enterprisers. Any price is

certainly not only wrong, but too high a price. We only have to look at

the height of price, the degree of price, that was paid in Germany and,

on the other side, in Russia.

Specifically, in the motion proposed by the opposition, they deal

with education and they deal with health — two things. I say without

qualification that this present government has made far better progress

than the former one did in these two fields. The socialists made their

progress by recognizing the dollar default, and you came through by

making the

[ Page 90 ]

system work, as it will — and as it will work under the continuing

system. All you have to do is properly nourish it. The system is fine

and dandy, Mr. Speaker.

True, the priority emphasis of the former administration was woeful,

and the socialists have worked to improve that. But now we find,

flushed with excess and success — neither the money, which they didn't

create themselves, and to a great extent inherited — flushed with the

success of a system which was not of their own making. You want to

change the whole thing and regulate and control and change the system.

And in the result a fantastic increase in administration, and a great

increase in personality.

But controls and regulations, Mr. Speaker, mean more administration;

more administration means more bureaucracy; more bureaucracy means more

political expense and less personal freedom and far less personal

involvement. And the socialists call that progress.

Take brother Bremer. You thought he'd be a prophet; we didn't. His

premises and his policies were tried and they were tested. They were

not accepted in other regions over the past 10 years. He would probably

have been a saint in the days of the height of student unrest. But I

find that when you were thinking that his ideas and open-school concept

were new and innovative and necessary for B.C., you were approaching

that really more from the viewpoint of an open mouth than an open mind

and, I say, with complete disregard to the evidentiary experience from

other areas.

So the judgment error all through here was not that of Mr. Bremer;

it was that of this government. Even worse, you destroyed, by firing

him and probably by libeling him too, that which he was doing and doing

most effectively. He was at least making people think, and no end of

them. They were offering their attitude to his premises and making

contributions — in opposition, if nothing else — to his point and

volunteering their suggestions to the betterment of our educational

programmes in British Columbia.

So what do you do? You put brother Bremer and the bathwater all down

the plughole at one time. You know, it's much worse, say, than firing a

football coach. That man should have worked out his year. He should

have kept sharp his needle, and I'd say that British Columbia would

have reaped quite a bit of public benefit and a great deal of public

input instead of just going ahead and paying him two years for one

because you were facing nothing more than a losing lawsuit.

Policy changes in the field of education the amendment talks about.

There are lots. Let's continue to see that we make it more relevant.

Let's return, as I said earlier in my remarks, to the personality as

opposed to the impersonality of education.

For example, it's utter rubbish today that a high school student

cannot take a course which was planned and agreed to and calendared,

just because a computer made a mistake — where we find a situation, a

great criticism, in my view, of the semester system, where students can

finish all their high school course in one subject by grade 11; maybe

even under; maybe even 10 and then they can't write for a scholarship

until a year or so later when they graduate.

Indeed, the reduction of class size — and I appreciate the problems

with that and the economic consequences, but it is a need. It's a need

that's been expressed in this House ever since I've been a Member, and

certainly it's been a need that's been very truly recognized and

campaigned upon by the New Democratic Party. But not very much progress

there.

Once again, your overall policy is one of control. You know, I can

forecast under this administration that in the Department of Education

we'll find the same thing that happened to the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and the independent agencies: that it won't

be long until the function of the school trustees has been

extinguished. One roof, one place, one policy, and that's the brute in

the centre of bureaucratic B.C.

You know, Mr. Speaker, you used to say "Follow the birds to

Victoria." Now that's changed to "Follow the bureaucrats to Victoria."

The second and final aspects of the motion talks about health. The

Foulkes Report has given a lot of people the whim-whams and I'm

certainly glad that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is not

regarding it as gospel, and has so informed the people in B.C. I think

its scariest feature, once again, is government-committed inflexibility

and direction towards over-control.

Why do that? The doctors are performing, the nurses are performing.

Hospital facilities and training facilities are a more situation and

will continue to be a more situation. That's not going to stop. The

population is growing; the techniques are expanding. You've got to

provide the facilities and there's got to be more and more of those.

But as the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said yesterday, we

don't need mountains of structures or unwieldy control to build

comfortable quarters for the aged and provide proper remedial care.

Nor, indeed, is there any need for any more of these long-range,

two-volume plans to tell us about that aspect of it. Just get on with

the job, as he said.

I think there's no end for you to do in the areas which I've been

talking about without restructuring, centralizing, and controlling all

of society. You've got to remember that you have not been given that

mandate. You have got a 38 per cent mandate in the

[ Page 91 ]

Province of British Columbia, which is slipping all the time. You're

unfortunately bringing programmes in to the contrary — as though you

had the complete mandate to bring in these regulations to change the

structure of society along the lines which you consider to be correct.

This is where, of course, we

part company with you philosophically. But

taking the steps you have taken with the mandate that you have is not

right.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak briefly to the amendment.

Yesterday some mention was made that I really wasn't a Conservative,

that I was really a socialist. We tried to make the point that in

social reform there are many policies and actions of the government

which have received the support of this party and will continue to

receive that support.

At the same time we must make it very plain, and I think the Second

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has echoed many of our

sentiments, that where we differ very widely from the socialists is in

the restrictive and centralizing methods that the socialist uses to try

and bring about well-meaning and well-intentioned social goals. It

seems to me that the fields of education and health exemplify this very

well.

An Hon. Member: Decentralization?

Mr. Wallace: Freedom of choice, which was mentioned, is also

another very fundamental difference that this party has, compared to

socialists. The idea that the government can do a better job, not only

do a better job but it seems only to be able to tackle these jobs if it

is given a monopoly control, as is the case with automobile insurance.

I would like to say a little more about that in the main debate on the

motion.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: But we certainly don't like the difference

between what you call us, my friend, and what you're delivering, and

that's the whole theme of this debate. Let's look at promises and let's

look at performance. I think on that point, Mr. Member, let's just go

on to education.

We had a very strong defence of the government position by the

Premier last night on behalf of the Minister of Education. He quoted

figures, but he didn't refer to the actual document that I happen to

have in my hand right now, which is the BCTF brief, which quotes a

survey from early November 1973, which is pretty up to date. I'm

talking about the number of pupils in a class. No matter how much we

argue about specific figures, let it be made very plain that in the

sense of this amendment, the government is not meeting its election

commitment to do for education what it promised to do. I propose in a

moment just to refute some of the figures the Premier mentioned last

night. I thought it was really pretty pathetic that he had to go back

to 1916 to draw comparisons.

The fact is, I have a copy of the maiden speech which the Minister

of Education made in 1967, January 30, and I'd just like to quote a

sentence or two from the Minister's maiden speech:

"Large classes and lack of special services such as

remedial teachers and counsellors are certainly not creating a good

learning environment in our schools today. School boards are well aware

of these needs in their district, but are, of course, reluctant to

initiate these vital services because of the financial impact on the

local taxpayer."

This is really the relevant part.

"It is to be hoped that this session of the

Legislature will see a considerable change announced in the school

entitlement figures in both secondary and elementary grades."

The Minister is clearly on record in the years I've been in this

House, when she spoke as education critic, that she indeed recognized

that the quality of education must inevitably depend, and does depend,

on the number of pupils, and that if a teacher has an unreasonably high

number of pupils, then the learning environment is indeed unfair. I

don't think anybody's debating that.

Of course, this is an element which is mentioned in the BCTF brief,

November, 1973, page 3: "The long-standing inadequacy of B.C. class

sizes has now become a crisis."

The lady candidate for North Vancouver–Capilano confirmed in public

the other night that indeed this remains priority number one in the

educational platform in the NDP, as indeed it should. I would certainly

go on record right now as saying it would also be the number one goal

of our educational programme.

But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that when you look at promise and

performance, the performance which the Premier claimed last night is

hardly borne out by the figures quoted in the top of page 3 in this

brief. It states that the average number per class is only 0.7 lower

than the 30.1 standard in effect six years ago, in 1967.

Now, let's not repeat a negative debate such as I am sorry I took

part in last night when all we did was slam the errors and omissions of

the past. Let's see where we're at today and where we think we should

go in the future and try and be positive about this.

The fact is, just to put the record straight, regardless of the

figures which the Premier quoted last night, these figures were

accumulated from a survey completed by elementary school principals and

1,080 out of the 1,168 elementary schools where

[ Page 92 ]

the average size of the classes was 29.4 in September 1973. They

finish the paragraph by saying that, incredibly in 1973, 21 districts

in British Columbia actually increased the average size of their

elementary classes over 1972. So the fact, in our view, Mr. Speaker, is

that if the NDP government is committed to this as a number one

priority, it is certainly falling far short in implementing it in a

practical way.

Now what are the practicalities? I think again we can quote the

Minister of Education from as recently as December 15, as reported in

The Vancouver Sun ...I'm sorry, that's not the date, I've got the wrong

quotation.

I would like to quote a newscast which was inaccurate, and I want to

put on the record my personal apology to the Minister for my acting on

this news report and asking for her resignation. I had a very difficult

job, I might say...and I'm not very happy about the media. I had a most

difficult job getting a transcript of this news report because the

transcript is inaccurate. But I want to put the record straight.

I'll read the transcript which I finally obtained. I might say I was

prepared to sue the radio station if I had to to get a copy of this

transcript. The responsibility of the media is a very responsible and

serious one, and since politicians are very much dependent....

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, I'll name names — CKDA and CJOR.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Not CFAX?

Mr. Wallace: No. You asked me to name names; I'm naming names. I'll name them outside this chamber.

But the fact is that the media in society today, perhaps more than

ever because of the instantaneous nature of reporting news, have a very

serious responsibility. And too, politicians in particular depend so

intimately on the media to be aware of what's going on in this

province. I'm sorry this incident happened, Mr. Minister.

The transcript read:

"Education Minister, Eileen Dailly, says B.C. teachers can

forget about reduced class sizes. She told a group of parents and teachers it

would cost an estimated $8 million to reduce each class in the province by one

pupil.

"Mrs. Dailly said it's not a question of classes being

too big; the teachers are incapable. She said they needed retraining, and placed

the blame largely on the university training programme. Mrs. Dailly said her

department would be taking a hard look at this area very soon."

That was an inaccurate report and, had it been accurate, I think I

would have been justified in my reaction in the light of your strong

commitment as a No. 1 priority to reduce class size. But the

information was inaccurate and I apologize that I acted on the basis of

inaccurate information.

To be objective and fair to the Minister, when I was able to pursue

the matter further and find out more precisely what she did say, the

Minister sounded very much to me as though she was hedging because of

the projected substantial cost of reducing class size. She made the

statement that, while she might still believe in this, she was just one

Member of cabinet and she had to take the matter to cabinet and from

there to Treasury Board. The whole thrust of the comments, as I

understood them, was that we might not look forward in the near future

to very much in the way of a realistic reduction in the number of

pupils per teacher.

I'm willing to wait for the budget, but I'll certainly say this, Mr.

Speaker: on the evidence we now have, this amendment which criticizes

an inadequate attention to health and education is justified. For that

reason I support the amendment. But I am prepared to expect that the

budget speech will give us something definitive in terms of more money

to the Department of Education and the commitment to the employment of

more teachers.

On that same theme, I think the Minister has disappointed many

people, myself included, because I've always felt that the Minister of

Education, not only being a lady, was also objective and fair-minded.

When she criticized from this side of the House, her criticism was

always at least fair, based on fact and was not emotional. But I must

say that, in this newspaper quotation of December 15, 1973, where she

went through the roof because the provisional budgets were up by $82

million, it was just, I thought, very disappointing on the part of the

Minister. The quotation in the newspapers states: "Mrs. Dailly

suggested the school trustees had failed to exercise proper fiscal

responsibility."

Now, Mr. Speaker, all that I'm prepared to conclude is that

politicians can't have it both ways. If a politician believes that

certain improvements are to be made in a certain social field, that

politician knows very well that it costs money — taxpayers' money. I

think that if anybody is being irresponsible then it is any one of us

in this chamber, any one of us in the government or opposition who

comes forward with well-intentioned, socially-desirable proposals

without a price tag.

If I could go back for a moment to the Minister's maiden speech in

1967, where in this she is absolutely right: "Kindergartens which have

been accepted as part of the regular school system by

[ Page 93 ]

many other countries and provinces of Canada for years are today in

this province not yet part of our basic school programme." The

Minister, again from this side of the House, for the few years that

I've been here, has repeated that on many occasions. She has quite

rightly encouraged educators and trustees to think in progressive

terms. One of the progressive ways to handle education is certainly to

bring the child into a learning environment at an earlier age, namely

in the kindergarten.

I would say that another very excellent idea that the Minister has

promoted is the idea of teacher aides in the schools so that you can

actually assist the teacher in achieving full potential of his or her

training.

This doesn't just relate to education or health; it relates to every

single department of government. It is not right to suggest, however

good the proposal, a certain programme and then, when the bill is too

high, complain or be a little unjust and rude to the very persons,

namely the school trustees, who are motivated to bring forward

programmes which they have been led to believe the Minister favours. It

just seems to me to be very unfortunate.

From there on there have been other problems, other unfortunate

episodes in the department which have further reduced the image with

which the Minister was once held in this province. This somewhat

tarnished the whole department, unfortunately.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Not at all.

Mr. Wallace: Well, the Attorney-General says, "Not at all," but I'm trying to be objective.

Now, maybe in the light of day, when we analyse this $82 million and

we see how it was compiled, we might be more sympathetic to the

Minister's response. But, first of all, it was a preliminary budget

which, we all know, is usually to be pared anyway whether it's a budget

at home or a budget in the office or a budget in a municipality. The

word "preliminary" means that you're just taking a look at what the

biggest possible bill might be, in effect. The Minister responded in

that way and, furthermore, did not give us as politicians or the public

any kind of reasonable breakdown of the $82 million so that perhaps we

could assess for ourselves whether or not school trustees were being

irresponsible.

I just happen to have a great deal of confidence and faith in school

trustees — certainly the ones I know. It just bothers me a little bit

that people who take on that role with the very best of intentions in

the hope of improving their community and improving their educational

system should feel that, when they do their job, this is the kind of

public castigation they are liable to receive — with very minimal

justification for that particular outburst.

The question of Mr. Bremer has been raised and I don't want to go

into great detail. But, Mr. Speaker, if one tries to be a constructive

critic I think it is only right to consider the terms of the

order-in-council under which Mr. Bremer was set up. "Set up" was not

intended to be used in any other way than the literal way.

Mr. Speaker, the order-in-council states: "that a detailed study and

evaluation of all aspects of education and training presently being

provided in the several public institutions in the province be

conducted, and that such recommendations for changes and improvement as

are necessary and desirable be submitted to the Minister for

consideration." With respect, I would say that I don't think any single

man exists on this earth who could really fulfil that kind of

enormously wide project. To be given such broad terms of reference

makes it a mammoth task which makes one wonder whether any person could

really fulfil it.

Because of the very terms of reference, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest

that, unavoidably, the person filling this role would have to be partly

academic and partly political. Almost by virtue of the way these terms

are spelled out: "a detailed study and evaluation...and to make...recommendations for changes and improvements as are considered

necessary and desirable (to) be submitted to the Minister...." These

terms of reference inevitably landed Mr. Bremer — or anybody else who

was appointed as a commissioner — to be partly political whether he or

she wanted to be so. The terms of reference make it very clear that Mr.

Bremer was to come back with ideas and recommendations which would

inevitably influence policy changes in the educational system. When you

have any kind of relationship to policy changes, whether or not you

like it, you are politically involved. I think it is very difficult and

probably impossible for any individual to complete the commission work

in the terms under which it was initiated.

I think that the Premier of this province, in my opinion, made a

simple human mistake on television. I think he slipped out a few

sentences which were not intentional and which in retrospect he knows

he should not have done and would not have done. But the whole point,

Mr. Speaker, is that you can't take these words back. They were said;

the damage was done, and I believe that the Premier himself very much

regrets what he said.

I don't mean that he didn't have maybe the ultimate intention of

dismissing Mr. Bremer, and that is certainly the right and the

privilege of the Premier if he finds that the commission was not

working out. But I think, Mr. Speaker, that it must be made very clear

to the public of British Columbia that a highly able and experienced

educator has been very seriously slighted in the full view of the

public by the Premier

[ Page 94 ]

of this province and by the Minister.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of his work, I really do think

that the Premier of this province owes it to Mr. Bremer and to himself

as a man of integrity to publicly recognize that he made a human

mistake like we all do. He should apologize to Mr. Bremer and he should

also make some kind of public statement as to the exact area of Mr.

Bremer's work in which Mr. Bremer failed.

It isn't fair to any man given the very responsible task of being a

single commissioner under these terms of reference to be sort of

branded with a very broad brush as a failure, a bit of a flop. Mr.

Bremer, like the rest of us, if he makes mistakes, has to try and get a

job somewhere else. I think that we all know very well that when you go

looking for a job the first thing you're asked is: "Where was your last

job, and can you produce a reference?"

I appeal, I don't ask. I'm appealing to the good common sense which

the Premier of this province so often exhibits in human affairs, that

he would only be a greater man if he states in public that he regrets

his mistake, and to give Mr. Bremer at least a fair appraisal. I'm not

even saying he should give him a recommendation. But if Mr. Bremer has

in some way fallen short, at least it should be known in what

particular respect, so that his whole future as a highly talented and

professional educator is not irreparably damaged.

I just think that for a Premier and a government which talks about a

code of human rights and human dignity, fair play and justice for the

individual, that is the very least, I think, that Mr. Bremer deserves

in this province.

To just make a final comment on the Bremer affair, I personally feel

that the intent of the commission was very good. What we were trying to

spark in this province was dialogue between people closely involved

with the educational system: the Minister, the people in the department

and the teachers and trustees, with parents and ordinary members of the

public who have children, or other relatives or friends intimately

involved in education.

It would seem to me that perhaps if Mr. Bremer was at fault — and

I'm not saying he was — but if he was, in the view of the government,

it was because he was doing the job too well. He was sparking all kinds

of reaction. People were coming out to public meetings and he was

getting great response. Now whether the response was the kind of

response that the government wanted is something else again. But let's

face it, Mr. Speaker, government shouldn't set up commissions in good

faith if they're going to be upset by some of the responses. That's the

risk you take. If you want to be so politically careful, I suppose you

wouldn't set up the commission in the first place.

But having shown a sense of adventure and innovation in setting up

this commission, my impression in reading news reports and in listening

to the kind of public response which Mr. Bremer was getting, I'll also

say in passing, is that I wasn't satisfied with all of the things he

said because I didn't agree with them. But, there again, surely we're

not just looking for agreement; we're looking for new ideas, public

response and the potential to build a better educational system. Maybe

he didn't do it the way the government wanted, or maybe he talked too

much; but we all talk too much.

Mr. J.H. Gorst (Esquimalt): That's right.

Mr. Wallace: The fact is that not only was this an exciting

concept, probably set up under difficult circumstances, that in

retrospect could be improved, but I do feel that he was serving a very

useful purpose. I would just hope and ask that the Minister, somewhere

in the debate, Mr. Speaker, would at least assure us that there won't

be just a whole big pail of whitewash thrown on the work that has been

done.

Whether Mr. Bremer is still here or gone or dismissed, or whatever

happens to Mr. Bremer, useful work has been done. I've spoken to some

of the people who have been involved in various committees and in

advisory capacities and it's certainly their apprehension that because

the commission has not been a success there will be every political

effort just to tone the whole thing down and try and let it quietly

fade away into the background and hope that the public will just

quickly forget the whole unfortunate episode.

Again I say, in fairness to other individuals and to the public, let

that not happen. I would appeal to the Minister to give the House a

pretty definitive statement as to just where we're at in relation to

the committees that were set up, what work they're doing and how she

proposes to bring the.... I know she's mentioned that there will be a

White Paper, and I hope that that will encompass the work that has been

done and will not be used purely for some kind of political rearguard

action to cover up the unfortunate political price that's been paid in

dismissing Mr. Bremer.

There was a general advisory board and a special advisory board and

I hope that not only will we hear of their work, but that they will be

allowed to continue to function.

As I said earlier, I'm sorry, but the Minister's image has been

somewhat tarnished. At a further stage in time, a committee was set up

composed of the BCFT and the trustees' association together with

department officials. Again, I learned from various people involved in

that committee that things seemed to be going very well and they were

trying to co-operate with the Minister's department, and all of a

sudden this particular committee was then terminated.

[ Page 95 ]

The Minister may correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read of any

stated reason by the Minister or anybody else as to why this committee

was suddenly terminated. There may be some good reason, but there

again, the Minister has unfortunately created the impression in the

province not only that things are not all well in the Department of

Education, but that the very administrative ability of the department

is under judgment, and that abrupt and inexplicable decisions are taken

which seem to contradict so much of the initial policy which she

enunciated and the press releases that she has diligently given to

explain why she was setting up these committees in the first place.

We seem to have gathered a fair amount of information as to what the

commission was supposed to do, what the committees were supposed to do,

but within a very short time the commission has disappeared and the

committees' status and their function and their activity are uncertain.

Here's one committee that was only set up a few weeks ago and suddenly

it's been terminated.

The great delay in appointing the Deputy Minister could do nothing

but add to difficulties of administration within the department.

Initially it was stated that there would be two Associate Deputies, or

two Deputies rather than the customary process of one Deputy directly

under the Minister. Apparently, there again, policy reverted 180

degrees and we did finally learn of the fact that there would be one

Deputy Minister, Mr. Fleming. All this kind of ebb and flow and

changing of decisions and what were really policy changes midstream,

one might say, have certainly caused — not just in my view, but in the

view of many people I speak to around the province — a loss of

confidence in the department and in the Minister. I'm sad that this is

the point that's been reached.

One last point in speaking to this amendment about education is the

proposal to involve to a much greater degree the Department of Labour

and the whole area of vocational school training and planning of

curriculum. The press release on this subject was written in jargon or

some other similar rather complicated language.

It was a little difficult to be exactly sure where the

responsibility of the respective departments would be applied, whether

this was a substantial transfer of authority from the Department of

Education to the Department of Labour or whether it was a truly

co-operative plan. Probably the way in which the release was written is

indicative of the fact that I don't think the two departments are yet

quite certain exactly what the degree of co-operation and overlapping

of responsibility would be.

All I would say in this regard is it has caused a great deal of

concern among the teaching staff at the vocational schools and on the

part of people like the students, who are one-year practical nursing

students. I hope that here again we haven't gone ahead with some kind

of loosely-thought-out and inadequately-researched programme, and maybe

next week we'll wake up and find an announcement that the whole idea

has been scrapped.

Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the aspect of health in the amendment

to the motion: I commented briefly last night on the Foulkes Report and

I intend to be brief again today because it is a massive document and

contains a great deal that is good. But again this difference between

the socialist and the non-socialist comes through in the Foulkes Report.

The overall emphasis in this report is on organization and structure

and administration and committees and regional boards and so on. Now

I'm the first person to admit that the complexity of delivering medical

services these days certainly demands and deserves good organization of

personnel and facilities. But in terms of this amendment seeking to

point out that the government's promise and their performance are

really not easily identifiable, each with the other....

Again, I've sat in this House several sessions and listened to the

Premier and others point out the tragic need of certain facilities in

this province. I needn't reiterate all of them, but the most serious

gap is in this area of intermediate care.

As I say, a lot of the information has been known for years — years!

Before I came to this province in 1961 it was a problem. Certainly in

the years I've been in politics it's been a big problem which really

nobody has tackled in adequate measure. Now the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) made what was a perfectly fair and valid statement

last night about some of the approvements that have been made. But the

nub of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that not nearly enough is being done

in the time that this government has been in power.

As I said last night — and I think it is so terribly important that

it be made plain — if we lived in a perfect world and we had time to

implement all the recommendations in these massive documents and set up

the administrative structure and provide all the bureaucracy which this

report implies, well, that would be just fine. But I don't know whether

that would take 10 years, or 20 years, or probably forever.

I have a horrible feeling that these same elderly citizens who are

having to live in substandard conditions at great financial expense and

physical and mental suffering might still be there 20 years from now

while we're still busy trying to build the structure. It just seems to

me that this government has the money, it has the knowledge, it has the

heart; it certainly did when it was in opposition. But what has it not

got?

It's so busy in its preoccupation with centralized control and bureaucracy that until we've got this

[ Page 96 ]

structure set up we can't provide the service. Or in fairness, I

would say that with possibly some of the structure they might finish up

providing a somewhat better level of service. But what happens to the

patients in the meantime while we're waiting for all these bodies and

boards and, goodness knows, all that to be set up? That's my simple

question.

So if we have the money and if we have the knowledge and if we have

the heart, why spend more and more time and money on a study of this

nature? The saddest part of the study, which has many feasible

features, is that it says the recommendation of the report in the

widest sense is that the government must make a total commitment to the

total programme.

They say there's nothing that can be done piecemeal, that this thing

has got to be adopted and implemented — period. The whole works, or it

can't be done. Maybe the person who wrote this is a bit of an academic

or maybe he's an administrator at heart, I don't know. I just say that

anybody reading this document certainly gets that impression. I just

have a terribly uneasy feeling that the poor patient who's desperately

needing the service and the facilities and a little bit of a better

diet and a better roof over his or her head is still going to be around

10 or 20 years from now, while we're still debating whether we can

provide all the facilities and the people and the money to implement

this on a widespread scale.

I think also, and it's only in passing, that the writer of this

document has been very hard on many very dedicated, hard-working,

professional people in this province. Okay, so our mental health system

had many gaps, and could be improved and so on; but the terms in which

the system is attacked in this report.... I think it should be recorded

that I take great exception to that since it in very little way pays

any kind of tribute or takes recognition of some of the tremendous work

that's been done by many medical or paramedical personnel in very

difficult circumstances.

I'm sure, in fact, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

would recognize that and admit that. In fact, he put a letter of his

own in with the report saying that he could not associate himself with

the views that were expressed in the

chapter on mental health.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government must, in my view, regard the

planning of health facilities as an immediate goal and a longer-term

goal. As I say, if we had the time and people weren't suffering in

various institutions for lack of care and lack of facilities, if

another year or two or three didn't really matter, I might be willing

to wait a little longer and try to implement this rather grandiose,

all-comprehensive programme. But that is not so. We must act and act in

the immediate future to create the facilities and the coverage to help

that tremendous bulk of citizens who need intermediate care.

There's just no question that if this province has one social need

that inexplicably is being talk-talk-talked about, but not solved or

even tackled, it's intermediate care. Ask the lady Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who went around this province last

summer. Every place we went we got the same story: if you're acute

care, it's just great; if you're extended care, you can go at $1 a day;

but if you're on intermediate care.... Not only is there tremendous

lack of facilities, but when you finally find a facility, you probably

have to travel 20 or 30 miles. When you're elderly, you're leaving your

friends and your friends can't travel. And so they suffer.

We've had a lot of lip service paid in this House about the

loneliness of the aged. That's for sure. I've heard it from all sides

of the House. Part of that loneliness and desolation and separation

from friends is something that we just could tackle in a very realistic

way if right now we got on to creating these facilities.

I've talked many times in this House about the Alberta nursing home

programme, and that's got nothing to do with the Conservatives, because

it was brought in by a Social Credit government in Alberta. I give them

full credit for that. It's a programme which is praised and recognized

as being very successful by many other provinces. In fact, most other

provinces have sent a staff to Alberta to look at the programme. It's

working extremely well. It could be implemented in a tenth of the time

that this great big, thick, voluminous programme could be implemented.

The Minister commented last night that they had made improvements in

the field of extended care. And that's correct. The government has

taken over two private hospitals in Victoria. But look at the

consequence of that, Mr. Speaker. These hospitals are for extended-care

patients.

I'd like the Minister to tell me what is happening to the patients

in these hospitals who do not qualify for extended care but certainly

do need some kind of facility. I made inquiries, and I can tell the

Minister if he can't tell me. "They're being phased out" is the phrase

I got.

In other words, some of these elderly persons who do not qualify for

extended care have to be relocated in some other private facility

without hospital coverage, without any maintenance — not necessarily,

but probably — of standards such as are enforced or maintained in the

other extended-care facilities. So while, indeed, the Minister is

helping to find more extended care beds, once again it's at the expense

of another group in society — the group in the middle.

It's always that group in the middle. If you've got a broken leg or

a broken neck or a heart attack, you're all right. If you're hopelessly

and seriously

[ Page 97 ]

disabled, then you're extended care — that's fine. But believe me,

Mr. Speaker, if you're anything in the middle you're just out of luck

in this society — you just don't get the care or the facilities.

All of us stand and speak in this chamber about what should be done,

and I'm really disappointed in this government on that one particular

score — it was such a central part of their policy all the years

they've been around this province, speech after speech after speech.

And still, because of their ideology, their attitudes, bureaucracy,

organization and structure, they forget about the individual who needs

the help. We get this great big document that will take years to

implement, perhaps at an expense that isn't necessary. Let's get down

to simple, basic, obvious....

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows all about this — he's

heard this argument for years and years from his own side of the House.

He used to make the argument himself, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: He's Acting Minister of Health.

Mr. Wallace: So when you wonder why I'm getting all upset

about this amendment, it is most applicable, and most apt, because

unquestionably if there's one part of the social programme, Mr.

Speaker, of that government over there where they're falling far short

between promise and performance, it just has to be in this sad, serious

area of intermediate care.

If there's only one favour I would ask of this government.... I

shouldn't use the word "favour"; it isn't any kind of "favour" — it's

an obligation that government over there has to put aside the longer

term, idealistic, bureaucratic recommendations of this report. I plead

with the lady Member from Burrard (Ms. Brown) — she knows, and I'm sure

she'll give this the fullest support in caucus. Please meet one of the

most human needs that we have in our society today, and that's that

large segment of mainly elderly people — not all elderly, but mainly

elderly — who see us living in our affluent society. They're not only

lonely, but they're neglected, and are not getting a fair share of the

social financing in this province.

Just because we quite correctly attacked the former administration

last night for that particular shortcoming, I'm very disappointed and I

never thought I would see the day that we would have to stand here and

criticize this government for exactly the same shortcoming.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): First of all I'd

like to say that it's always a pleasure to respond to comments made by

the Liberal and the Conservative Members. I find that it's constructive

comments which they make, and that's the climate in which I like to

work. Needless to say, that is why I am not going to even attempt to

respond to the comments by the Social Credit Members last evening.

I would like to just comment on a few of the points which have been

raised today. I know we're all going to have an opportunity in this

session to speak several times in more detail, particularly the

Ministers in their own departments, but I would like to respond to some

of the comments which were made earlier.

I know that the Liberal spokesman was concerned about the great

centralization of this government with reference to school boards. He

expressed a fear that perhaps we were on the road to the elimination of

school boards. I'd like to make it quite clear right here that we have

no intention of eliminating school boards in this province. I for one,

as you know, was a former school trustee and very aware of the great

need to have local representation in education. And after all, the

school boards are elected to represent the community. Once we eliminate

the local school board we've lost a very vital voice in the community.

An Hon. Member: Will they have their autonomy?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: If we're going to believe in following our

party platform, which means, basically, decentralization of

decision-making, certainly the school boards must maintain their

autonomy for deciding on the major issues in education in their own

area. I know, myself, as a school trustee that if I were not able to

make educational decisions I would wonder also what would be the point.

However, I know that following this some of you will say, "Well,

then, why have you been making statements and making outbursts?" as the

Conservative leader said I did to the school boards. Well, I frankly

didn't consider it an outburst when I sent out the press release on the

matter of the rather large increase in school board budgets. I felt

that as Minister of Education I did have a responsibility to pass on to

the school boards my concern. Even though I'm quite aware of the

problems we all face with inflation today, I was concerned that the

provisional increase had reached the figure of $82 million. I simply

said to the school boards, "Would you please exercise fiscal control

before you send in your final budget?" At no time did I attempt to

suggest to the school boards that you must eliminate the programmes

which I myself had initiated as Minister.

I think following any of the speeches I have made that anyone would

be quite aware that I consider that a primary objective of our system

is to provide services to children; and I've always reiterated to

school boards that surely your budgets must focus entirely on what is

giving service to children. So at no time would I suggest the

elimination of or cutting back on kindergarten services, which are

basic services

[ Page 98 ]

to children. We believe that and I know other Members do. Nor did I

make an attempt at any time to suggest that we should be increasing

class sizes or cutting down teachers.

I do think that you'd all agree that no matter what business you're

running, there perhaps can be created areas of fat. All I was asking

the school boards to do was simply look at their budgets; perhaps there

are some areas of fat that can be trimmed.

Interjection.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: That, of course, is up to the school

boards, and I do not spell it out to them. But I do think, as Minister,

that I do have a responsibility to say to them, "Would you go over your

budgets very carefully?" Of course the alternative, which was certainly

the philosophy of the former government, was to impose ceilings. That

is complete centralization of control and the removal of autonomy, and

we are not intending to do that. I still, however, have a

responsibility when I do see large increases to ask school boards to

co-operate with me in attempting to keep them down as well as they can.

I certainly want to at all times endorse the fact that as Minister

of Education I will always attempt to ensure that we have an education

budget which will provide services to children. But I want to point out

to the House, as I think you all know, that there are areas in some

school board budgets which I really think we have to question as to

whether they are really benefiting the child in the classroom.

Mr. Gardom: What are they?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Those are the areas, and I will be discussing those areas with you when I speak later in the estimates.

Mr. Wallace: You're keeping us in suspense.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I've talked to school boards at different

times about this, and I think we can all think of our own boards. I'm

not accusing boards of this province of all having areas of fat, but I

do say that there are areas in which they have put some funding which

is not servicing children, and I'll elaborate on that later in the

session.

I'm not saying it's that great an amount of money. I have never

suggested that at any time. But I do think this board has to sit back

and always assess it from that point: what are the priorities and the

services for children?

I don't feel I would be a responsible Minister if I simply sat back and made no comment on this at any time.

The matter of the concern over the work that has already been

started under the Bremer commission: I want to assure particularly the

Conservative House Leader (Mr. Wallace) that all the work will be

continuing. I'd like to just tell you basically what this encompasses.

Mr. Bremer was chairman of the University Task Force. Its work is

almost completed now; they've finished their public hearings and we

will be hoping for a final report from them I would think in a matter

of two to three months. So that work is going nicely.

The College Task Force, which was not chaired by Mr. Bremer and has

been moving around the province in the last two months, is doing an

excellent job, and is continuing. It is evaluating the whole area of

college legislation, and where we are going in the development of

college facilities in the province. I would like to elaborate that

certainly the east Kootenay area is one area that is to be considered.

The matter of the general advisory commission: I've informed those

people that I would like to meet with them. I realize they're

interested people from all walks of life. I'm not quite sure what they

were doing before, but I'm quite interested to meet with them and see

if together we can find out what area of interest they have in helping

me in directions in education.

The whole concern seems to be — and I realize it — that all public

discussion on education will now cease. This, of course, is not the

case. Ever since I came into office, I have received, on the average,

1,000 letters a month, all on education. I have files and files of

briefs

and letters from interested citizens across the province. The material

is there. The people's names are there. We have a lot of people out

there who are still very anxious and will always be anxious to talk

about education. I can assure you that we intend to make sure that the

public will be able to continue talking about education in this

province. The machinery for that I'll be elaborating on later.

As a matter of fact, we feel that the Department of Education should

move out more and not just sit in Victoria. I'm hoping to send more of

the people from the department out to meet with the public. That is

basically the core, the machinery, we'll be establishing.

There's one area I'd like to clear up and that's the whole matter of

this trustee-teacher committee which seems to have been grossly

misinterpreted. The terms of reference as listed in the press I didn't

recognize at all from the initial report which I gave on the reasons

for this trustee committee. This trustee-teacher committee was set up

by me mainly to talk about collective bargaining procedures and

possible changes in that area and the whole area of teacher-trustee

relationships.

We sat down. They were very concentrated meetings. I'll be quite

frank with you. I was hopeful that if the two groups could get together

on some of

[ Page 99 ]

these issues that have been hanging around this province for 20

years, and were never really come to grips with by the former

administration.... I was perhaps a little too hopeful that in a short

time the two groups could come together on some rather sensitive issues.

It was quite obvious to me after over six meetings that there was

not any appearance of any complete agreement on the major subjects

under discussion. Each party, the teachers and the trustees, both

presented briefs, complete briefs, concluding briefs, on their stands

on the issues being discussed. I realized that as there was going to be

no meeting of the minds between the two groups at this time and as each

group had presented their brief, that the best possible step was for me

to take the briefs, and they will be attached to the White Paper I'll

be presenting to the House shortly, which will, I hope, dispense with

some of the confusion about the direction in which the Department of

Education is intending to go.

I want to assure you, again to the Conservative House Leader, that

this is not just a political White Paper. This will be made up of the

feedback that I've received personally, and other members of my

department, ever since we came into office. There's no one political

party that can say, "This is the only way we can go in education."

I find that everyone today is somewhat confused about the direction

one should go. We have many people, of course, who say, "Let's go back

to the traditional system of education," and others who say, "Please

move on with the progressive." I want to assure the House here and now

that I have no intention as Minister to impose one system or the other.

I find that the best way to go is to provide opportunities for both

types to exist in our province. I think the Victoria School Board with

its Sentinel and Sundance schools has shown a good example there —

where the parents can send their child to the traditional or the

progressive school.

If you want to know my own personal feelings, I, of course, lean to

the progressive. But this does not mean to say I intend to impose this;

I have no right to do this. The basic difference between the

progressive and the traditional is, I think, quite simple. The

traditional system is mainly the type of system that you and I were

taught as a group in a fairly rigid structure, where you have a basic

competitive, graded type of competition atmosphere.

Now many parents feel that that's the only way their children will

succeed. They want them in a structured situation; they want them

taught in a mass group, and they believe that the child will be

motivated and stimulated if there is grading and competition. Now other

parents, including myself as a parent, would prefer to have my child in

what I call a progressive system where they are treated more as an

individual, where there is very little mass teaching, where the child

competes against himself or herself and not against the other child in

the classroom.

As I've said, some of you become doctors and lawyers and yet, in

school, we expect each child, some who will never become a doctor or a

lawyer, to be graded against the child who will have that potential. I

could speak on this for a considerable length of time, but I don't

think this is the time or place. I'm simply trying to inform the House

that I have no intention of imposing my own personal ideas on anyone in

this province.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): You already have.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think it's my responsibility to create a

system which will give the alternative. I think that is basically the

areas of concern which have been expressed across the floor and I would

conclude my remarks with that.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): I listened with great interest to the comments of the Minister of Education, and I'll say more about that later.

I was pleased to hear that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) had

changed his mind today about the role he took in the rather shameful

preoccupation with the past that took place last night. For a man so

sincere in his ideas, whether one agrees with him or not, it was quite

a shock to see his performance.

I must admit, as a representative of some people in this province,

of one constituency, that it was interesting to me when I read the

Speech from the Throne, a short eight-minute document, that the Premier

is laughing about and saying it's just nothing and it's there to tease

the opposition, when in fact it should be a document outlining for the

public of British Columbia what the government's policies are for the

future. Not just to tease.

It's even more essential that this government have a strong throne

speech and a throne speech that indicates very much the concerns that

we've indicated in this amendment, because those are specific areas

where the public are concerned. Those are specific areas where the

Ministers involved have, by way of intent or by way of lack of ability,

created confusion, unrest and concern in the Province of British

Columbia.

We, in moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker, are trying to assume a

responsible role for those people that we represent in British

Columbia, and we are trying as sincerely and as hard as we can to bring

to the attention of this government the concerns of the people of

British Columbia.

It's surprising to me that the government itself proved unwilling to

listen and was more intent on political agreement with one of the rump

groups of

[ Page 100 ]

the opposition, and that in fact that rump group, which gets smaller

and smaller, was so concerned with politics rather than the genuine

concern of the people that they represent.

But speaking to education, Mr. Speaker, as it's outlined in this

amendment, I find myself in a position that is not a happy position. I

have sat across the floor of this House from this Minister for nearly

eight years now and I have listened to her in opposition and I have

listened to her since becoming a Minister.

I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in opposition I felt that she

was indeed very sincere in what she believed should be done for

education. I felt indeed, Mr. Speaker, that she must be very

knowledgeable in what should be done for education in British Columbia

because she spoke so articulately and with such conviction. But, Mr.

Speaker, it's very sad to see that this Minister, in fact, was not as

knowledgeable as she was articulate and she was not as convinced as she

was articulate.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that no Minister in any government in

Canada assumed her responsibility with more support and more good

wishes than did this Minister of Education. I'm sure no one would

correct me if I said that every Member in this House who is extremely

sensitive to the complexity and the sensitivities of education,

regardless of party, wished her well. If I recall correctly....

Hon. Mr. Macdonald (Attorney-General): They should; she's doing very well.

[Mr. Dent in the Chair.]

Mrs. Jordan: Indeed, Mr. Attorney-General, we do wish her

well, but the problem is that the Minister herself, while she's doing

her best, is unable to live up to that commitment that she made.

Mr. Speaker, if you'll check Hansard I'm sure we all recall that

Member after Member in this House, regardless of party, stood on the

day of her appointment — or their time in the Speech from the Throne

and estimates, and the budget debate — and offered support, offered

constructive criticism if she should seek it and should we feel it was

necessary. And in general, as I say, Mr. Speaker, no Minister ever

assumed a portfolio with more good wishes, more blessings and more help

than did this Minister.

Mr. Speaker, we wonder what has happened today in the interim. We

see today a Minister who is under serious charges from the public, from

teachers, from school boards and from this Legislature — not because of

her basic commissions, but because of her errors of omission. Not

because we don't believe that she's sincere, but because there is

strong evidence to suggest that she's fallen into a series of pitfalls

which are going to be very costly to the young people and to the

educational system of this province.

Mr. Speaker, in 18 short months the queen bee of education has

buzzed down to the bottom of the ladder. We suggest that the reason for

this is that the Minister has proved unable, as she again repeated over

and over again this afternoon, to separate her personal ideological

convictions from her responsibilities as a Minister of this province —

that she has proven incapable of standing up under the pressure and

making clear, logical and responsible decisions.

She has indulged — in spite of the serious concern that has been

expressed that she shouldn't — in emotional decisions in education. I

speak specifically to this whole issue of so-called corporal punishment

judiciously used in the school. At the time the Minister spoke about

this and removed this — strap, if you'd like to call it — from the

schools...

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Bring back the birch.

Mrs. Jordan: ...the Minister said that she had polled

teachers of this province and the pupils of this province, and we find

that that was not true. She gave us to indicate that she had the

support of the majority of the principals in this province, and that

was not true. And she indicated to this House that she indeed had the

support of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, and that, Mr. Speaker, is not

true.

Volume 12, No. 4, December, 1972, of the newsletter of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation said:

"On corporal punishment BCFTA executive pointed out

that they had formed a committee to explore and evaluate alternatives

to corporal punishment, and that they anticipated positive

recommendations that the committee in the near future would bring in.

They requested changes in the existing regulations be delayed until

after the conclusion of recommendations of the committee were

available." And quoting them: "Their answer from the Minister was that

the removing of corporal punishment was a matter of deep personal

concern, and her mind was fixed on the issue."

At the time she brought it in the principals asked and we asked that

she wait for this report, or that she bring it in on a trial basis for

all the reasons stated then. And the Minister did what I personally

cautioned her not to do — made an emotional decision. It has left the

school system in British Columbia with a severe strain in this area,

and it is working to the detriment of many young people, particularly

in the secondary areas, who are having to be expelled from school —

whereas, in fact, in the odd times judicious use of corporal punishment

would keep them in school and be a great help.

[ Page 101 ]

An Hon. Member: Come on, get real!

Mrs. Jordan: Another area where the Minister has made an

emotional decision was in the area of kindergartens — not, indeed, in

bringing them in; they all were part of the school system, as were the

cost-sharing programmes at the option of the local school districts,

who knew their area well.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, at the option. Yes, quite. And the Minister

said — which is her right — on an emotional basis, "They will be

compulsory by September, 1973." We cautioned her that this was

impossible for any school district, or certainly the majority of school

districts, to provide the accommodation which she insisted be in the

school, to provide the busing which she insisted was possible, and to

get this programme off the ground.

She made an emotional decision and then, to her credit, although I

don't approve of emotional decisions, she reversed that decision some

months later after September in 1973 when the school boards advised her

that what she had commanded could not be possible.

What we suggest in that area, Madam Minister, is that had the

Minister truly been concerned about the development of kindergartens,

and sound kindergartens, in our schools in all school districts, then

she would have advised the school district as such. She would have

allowed those who didn't have the physical plants to utilize the

services of existing kindergarten facilities, and may well even have

expanded on those. And she would have indeed provided extra money for

busing, which she has not done.

We cautioned her at the time that busing for kindergartens is more

expensive than for regular school students because the students must

come in and out twice a day and can't spend full time in the schools.

They have a half day.

The Minister has failed: (1) to exercise a reasonable decision in

the area of kindergartens; (2) to provide extra money to build the

facilities; (3) to provide the extra money needed for the extra busing

service that is needed.

Today we know that in many areas schools are crowded. Much has been

said about the reduction of classroom sizes. The Minister has given

every excuse of why she couldn't complete this platform — a political

platform. But if the Minister had used reason she would have known that

by not forcing the kindergartens in immediately, in putting their local

funds into construction of kindergarten rooms when they could have

utilized already available facilities, that money could have gone to

provide more teachers to reduce the teacher-pupil ratio, particularly

in the elementary area.

Mr. Speaker, the government opposite shows a great capacity for

developing chaos. This has been mentioned in the area of health, in

housing and it is very evident in the field of education.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Where?

Mrs. Jordan: Although the inch-by-inch firing of the

so-called educational commissioner in British Columbia is perhaps the

most spectacular evidence of chaos, even that sorry incident, Mr.

Speaker, should be viewed in the broader concept of how this government

treats people — people in British Columbia.

In the incident of the firing of John Bremer this government

displayed the callous way in public that it has handled most of the

senior personnel problems with which it has had to deal.

The recorded list of this government's disregard for the feelings of

human beings is growing longer and longer every day. From a group that

spoke so often in this House and outside this House about individual

rights, they have demonstrated when in power, and when it suits their

purpose, that the individual is just somebody to be cast aside — and

cast aside when they themselves get into trouble. Or when they want to

favour a friend, they displace an individual...or when they want a

scapegoat for their own creative administrative chaos...and when some

party pressure is brought by the NDP. In the Bremer firing we see

public evidence of these characteristics.

From our point of view, and from our side, as we said, John Bremer

was not needed in the first place. At the time of his appointment I

sent word to the Minister through her pipeline that I had personally

contacted a number of areas where he had been employed. The reports

that one got back were hardly ones, if they read them, to instil

confidence in the Minister's original decision. I think Mr. Bremer has

suffered enough under this government, regardless of his attributes or

failings.

The Minister's preoccupation with the idea of change for change's sake may well have been the only reason for bringing him here.

This Minister thought by appearing to offer innovations she would be

able to cover up the real root problems connected with the educational

scene in British Columbia.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that the Bremer firing was just part of a long

list. Mr. Speaker, to refresh your memory, I would like to review the

instances that can be cited where this government has given people

shabby treatment.

The dismissal of a Minister of the Crown on quite flimsy reasons and no revelation of the real reason or the full story.

The horizontal promotion of distinguished civil

[ Page 102 ]

servants and the callous disregard for their professional pride and

reputation, and the unbelievable idea that by paying them more they

would salve their professional pride. Why, Mr. Speaker, was honest

treatment not afforded these civil servants where they could have been

honestly retired on full pension as is done in many union and

management agreements? Why was it not done by a labour government in

its own civil service?

Long before Mr. Bremer got the inch-by-inch firing over four days,

this government was in trouble. I won't go into the details because

they have been quoted.

The significant bowing to pressure of one NDP member in the

Revelstoke area. Mr. Speaker, the facts are that this Minister was in

trouble with her own elected party. I'm sure the Member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Hon. Mr. King) was one to have her ear.

The firing of Mr. Bremer has raised a lot of questions in the public

mind. What they want to know is what kind of an educational system are

we going to have in British Columbia. They want to know if education is

really going to change in this province and who is going to change it.

They want to know if education in British Columbia was as bad as this

Minister and her party painted it in opposition, or if, in fact, those

were not misinformed or political statements and that, in fact, the

Minister herself and her party and the Premier of this government have

found that the educational system in British Columbia was basically a

very sound one, that we have the highest standard of teachers in Canada

and that, while the educational system didn't have everything, it had

many innovative ideas that were not only developed here but copied in

other jurisdictions.

We believe this is what the Minister found out. We believe that it

is one of the reasons she has backtracked on political statements and

campaign promises. Unfortunately, this would appear to be one of the

reasons why there is tension and unrest in the educational system in

British Columbia today.

There is concern, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the public about who

is going to change the system in British Columbia. There have been

statements by people who have proven to be very influential with this

Minister — I would cite one, Mr. Robinson, for example — that the

educational system in British Columbia should be designed on a

doctrinal basis and it should equip young people to live in a socialist

democratic society that the government is creating.

With the firing of Mr. Bremer there is considerable concern that all

the committees that have been set up, which are so obviously filled

with appointments of party members, party hacks, party followers and

those who share the same ideology as the Minister...

Hon. Mr. Cocke: That's a bunch of garbage and you know it.

Mrs. Jordan: ...are going to be the people who will

formulate the policy of this province. There is a very serious concern

with Mr. Bremer's firing and with the thought that some people on these

commissions who have tried to keep an open mind and who have tried to

be flexible and who have tried to listen have found themselves eased

out if not in fact dismissed from the commissions. With this evidence

there is serious concern that all these task forces and commissions and

advisory appointments are such that if you don't toe the party line

then you don't speak and you won't have any influence.

The public are very, very concerned. They are concerned that we are

going to have, under the direction of this Minister who has shown a

tendency to emotional decisions, who has repeatedly stated how her own

ideology and her experience in the classroom from two years influences

her own decisions, a political education system in British Columbia.

I say to you, Madam Minister, as kindly as I can, that the people

don't want it, parents don't want it, the teachers don't want it and

the students don't want it. What they do want, what we want, Mr.

Speaker, is an Education Minister with an open mind, an Education

Minister who can make decisions on the basis of reason and educational

knowledge, an Education Minister who is flexible, and an Education

Minister who will not dwell on her own ideological concerns. This is

what the teachers want, this is what the parents want, this is what the

students want and this is what we want.

I cite an example of how this should be done. One good suggestion

that came out of Mr. Bremer's report was the idea of a students'

association in British Columbia. A very good idea, Mr. Speaker, in my

view and in the view of this party — but an idea that was dashed to the

rocks because of the Education Minister's own ideology. They believe in

compulsory membership; they believe in compulsion; they believe in

compulsive control. The Minister, and the government which supports

her, killed a good idea by suggesting that it be compulsory. I think

that a student association in British Columbia on a voluntary basis

would have a great deal to contribute to education in this province.

Mr. Speaker, one point that the people of British Columbia are

concerned about when this Minister talks of being progressive in her

views on education — and many of us, I think, tend to a progressive

approach — is that the Minister and the department, the commission, the

teachers, and the public must never lose sight of the fact of the

purpose of an educational system, which is to educate people of all

ages.

[ Page 103 ]

In education, whether we like to admit it nor not, there are some

writing — that we all must have if we are going to make a greater

contribution and develop as a society. We must remember while we want

an innovative and a flexible, progressive educational system, our

students must be educated whether they are senior citizens, or mid-age

people, or young students, in order that they can compete with other

educational institutions in Canada, North America, and other parts of

the world. We want to see this in British Columbia, and we ask the

Minister to settle down and bring this about.

I'd like to speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about the removal of

school taxes from personal property. In our position in the last

campaign this was an immediate priority of this government, but it is

now just another one of those promises that litter the beautiful

countryside of British Columbia.

One year, one full year after the confident way this Minister and

the Premier spoke of how this could be done, the Premier, in his own

constituency of Coquitlam, said: "We are now looking at five years." We

are now looking at five years. The vacancy of this NDP pledge is no

more evident than it is in this Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker.

But at that time the Premier said: "The school tax revenue will be, as

it evolves over the five years, replaced by corporate tax money aided

by a $5.7 million profit from the Columbia Cellulose Company" — the

government-controlled pulp mill in British Columbia — "and revenues

from the newsprint mill at Ocean Falls" — an obsolete mill that was

written off by another company.

For the Premier of this province, supported by the Minister of

Education, to suggest that these sources of revenue are a suitable

sinking fund for educational funds in British Columbia can be nothing

short of a complete lack of financial knowledge, or a complete sense of

responsibility. Shortly after that statement by the Premier, Ocean

Falls called for a further $1 million for assistance from the taxpayers

of British Columbia. We know that this source of revenue that the

Premier counts on to assist in the removal of school taxations from

property is fraught with management problems and is fraught with

problems of unrest within their staff.

I would quote Mr. Rudy Epick, president of the Pulp and Sulphite

local of the UPIU, who said: "Management is so hopeless in this mill, I

don't know what we can do but blame the government." Another president

at Ocean Falls, Mr. Gil Johnson, president of the Paper Makers' Local

of the UPIU stated: "The union members are extremely angry at the

company." An obsolete mill fraught with problems of management and

unrest is to be the basis of the tax revenues to pay for schools in

this province.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Education when she comes back into

the House what she has done about the occupational hazard of music

teachers and people in the workshops. I would like to call upon her to

use some of the surpluses in education that she has accumulated to set

up a research team — and I'm glad the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) is listening — to do a study into what are in fact the

occupational problems that have not yet been recognized, but are

developing in teachers who are teaching band music, or any type of

percussion music, and that may well be developing in teachers who are

teaching in workshops.

With the advent of soundproof rooms and suitable small areas for

band practice, the acoustics are greatly enhanced, and I believe that

the Minister will find that there is sound reason to suspect that this

is, in fact, an occupational hazard for these teachers and should be

recognized as such.

Mr. Speaker, the tragedy in this debate is that a Minister of such

promise, with such conviction, has so woefully and pitifully

unfulfilled her commitment in office. While she hammers the school

boards for fiscal mismanagement, she herself is guilty of underspending

her department's estimates in vocational school grants, in grants to

school districts in capital expenditures by $9.2 million.

We know that those moneys should have been spent for regional

colleges, a vocational school in Chilliwack and in the Kootenays. So

not only has she underspent, not only are these people without their

college, but considerable money has been spent, as my colleague from

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) said, in listening, re-listening and

re-re-listening.

Her whole department is underspent in the area of libraries and

taxes by $12 million. Mr. Speaker, the broken pledges of this Minister,

the faulty emotional decisions of this Minister and the broken

political promises and entanglements of this Minister and this

government are glaring and long.

I won't continue, because others will, but I would say that what we

want to see is a responsible Minister. We want to see the department

free of the political influence that is slowly strangling it through

the Minister's appointments. We want to see non-political,

representative cross-sections on any advisory board, commissions or

task force. We want to see these boards free to bring in their

positions, whether the government agrees or not, because that is the

joy and the responsibility of a government setting up these commissions.

We want to see extra financing to help with the chaos in the

kindergarten situation, extra money for busing, extra money for

facilities. We want to see, in fact, this Minister not only meet her

commitments that she pledged, but to exceed them, and help us in

British Columbia to repair these two years of unrest and concern and

confusion, and bring British Columbia into a better, more flexible, more

[ Page 104 ]

progressive and stable educational picture from '74 onwards. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): This amendment we're dealing with,

Mr. Speaker, deals with the problems of health and education in British

Columbia in the year 1974. Last evening I was quite interested in the

debate that took place, with reference to the comparisons that the

Premier of the province made with 1916 and, I believe, 1964, and so on

and so forth, as well as...not only the Premier, but the Liberals and

Conservatives. All they wanted to talk about and dwell on was the past.

Well, I don't think that's what the people of British Columbia want

to hear about today. I think they want to hear about the present and

the future.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: You be quiet! I've got something to say about you in a few minutes.

Also, it was quite interesting in the debate that outside of a

couple of MLAs here, all we heard from were MLAs from the urban area. I

realize that they don't know where the rest of British Columbia is

north of Hope. I'm going to try to tell them in this amendment, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to education and health. I get a little tired of

coming down to the large area and always getting the versions of the

ones that live across the street here and don't know anything that's

going on in the interior and northern part of British Columbia.

What I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, with reference to this

amendment, is that we are dealing with 1974 problems. This new

government, as it's been called, has been elected since 1972. My

concern is that they made a lot of promises in the 1972 election

campaign as to how they were going to change everything. I agree that

they certainly have changed a lot, but I don't think they have changed

enough in education as one item. In fact, education has more or less

stood still.

Then we have after almost 18 months of a new government, Mr.

Speaker, the new Minister deciding to attack the school trustees. I

resent this very much because basically I think that our

locally-elected people are the foundation of the society we live in. I

cannot understand why a Minister would, when she actually went out and

asked the trustees to go ahead and spend money — and I'm referring to

the election campaign in 1972 — "Those crude Social Credit days are

over; you go ahead, the lid is off and you can spend what you want."

Twelve months later the very same Minister was calling them

irresponsible because they're $80 million and some odd over what she

thought they should be. I think this Minister, for that action alone,

has lost a lot of confidence in the Province of British Columbia.

The people of this province have lost confidence in her and the least she can do is apologize to these locally-elected people.

They are very dedicated; they serve continuously long hours at very

small remuneration — certainly a lot smaller remuneration than the

Minister gets, and to have this slap in the face from someone that they

have looked forward to really open the floodgates of money, is a

real setback. So for this reason all classes of citizens, including the

students, are losing faith in the Minister of Education.

I don't think again, Mr. Speaker, that the lower mainland realized

the feelings of certain parts of the interior of this province, after I

heard the harangue from the Liberals and the Conservatives and the

Premier last night, as to what really is going on in this province. As

a matter of fact, I have reason to believe, I think, that some of them

have never been north of Hope in the Province of British Columbia and I

think it's time they got around to finding out.

I'm now going to quote, Mr. Speaker, from an editorial that's been

circulated in practically all the weekly papers in the interior of

British Columbia, talking about the Minister of Education. I'll read

this excerpt from the Cariboo Observer at Quesnel, which happens to be

my home town. But this editorial was not made from them, it came from

The Similkameen Spotlight and got a wide circulation in the dailies. It

goes on to say:

"We believe Eileen Dailly, Minister of Education,

should resign her cabinet post at once. Her decision to take corporal

punishment out of our schools has resulted in near chaos.

"In the past three months teachers have been beaten up in Merritt, Princeton, Keremeos."

I'm surprised that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

isn't on his feet about this, for two of these towns happen to be in

his riding of Yale-Lillooet, and I refer to Merritt and Princeton.

I would assume from this, Mr. Speaker, as well, that probably these

very teachers that got beaten up by the students probably campaigned

for that MLA in 1972.

"Recently a Grade 7 teacher was involved in an

altercation by two youths with the result that there was almost a mass

resignation by all of the teachers. There followed from Mrs. Dailly's

decision as a result the lowest morale of the teachers that can ever be

remembered.

"Critics could jump up and say that teachers got what

they asked for, but that isn't going to solve the problem, Mr. Speaker.

Not when a teacher has to try and carry on in a normal manner and at

the same time put up with youngsters who have got diarrhoea of the

mouth.

"One teacher told us recently that he is sick

[ Page 105 ]

and tired of being sworn at. He also said that the big difficulty is

that the youngsters causing the problem are upsetting the entire

learning process.

"Mrs. Dailly's pet argument, we understand, is that

violence begets violence. What she apparently didn't understand or even

know was that in her book it is all right for the student to be

violent, but not the teacher. Her guide of so-called modern thinking

would be all right, provided every home was well disciplined, Mr.

Speaker, and that children were taught respect in the home before they

left for school.

"But when her government is making it so easy for the

parents to neglect the children, then who is going to bell the cat? The

parents? The teachers? Or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Right now

we're laying all our money on the RCMP.

"Premier Barrett, you are fast losing the support of

the teachers. We aren't sure whether that could be good or bad, but

there's really something rotten in our schools. Can you really afford

the luxury of a Mrs. Dailly?"

That is the end of a quote originally written by the Similkameen

Spotlight , so I would imagine the Minister of Public Works, who I see

has disappeared already, knows all about that.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Who set up the system?

Mr. Fraser: I've got plenty to say to you, through you, Mr.

Speaker, plenty to say to you in about five minutes. You just hang on

to your shirt, Mr. Minister of Health.

I would just like to read a few notes from a concerned teacher about

education, and this concerned teacher is at present teaching in a rural

school in the Cariboo. A few short notes from someone who is very

concerned at the drift that is going on in the education system.

"We do not have a democratic choice of the method type

of education we desire our children to have. The Province of British

Columbia has no set basic standard of education throughout each grade

or level, therefore quality of education differs from area to area."

Hon. Mr. Cocke: And from teacher to teacher.

Mr. Fraser: "General education is too long. Too highly

specialized teachers. The discipline in our schools is poor. Too many

schools are being used for experimental purposes. Physical education, a

compulsory course, has become game oriented for a few students rather

than the physical development of each and every student in British

Columbia. Communication of what schools are doing in British Columbia

is very poor. Teacher training is not practical."

That's from a teacher who is presently teaching.

Now one other thing I'd say about education, Mr. Speaker, and I see

no move here for the government to do anything about it, is the problem

of children going to primary school up to Grade 7 in the rural areas,

and then they have to leave their homes and come and live in a boarding

home in a larger centre.

It is my opinion, and it is the opinion of parents in the rural

areas of this province, that these children are too young and school

should be in the rural area up to say at least Grade 9 so these pupils

will be more mature before they have to move into the tougher world.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Who set up the system?

Mr. Fraser: I don't care who set it up, they have the

responsibility, Mr. Speaker, these people have the responsibility of

governing. You promised to do all these things and you've done zilch.

Now get on with the job!

Now we'll get to the Department of Health. My friend over here, the

Minister of Health, seems to be all excited so I'll give him something.

He hasn't done anything either but he has made the odd ruling and

got himself in trouble when he did. But this is what I'm going to tell

him now.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with health under this amendment, again the NDP

said everything was haywire on our health delivery system in the

province and I don't see very many fast moves since 1972 to correct

that. About all that's been accomplished since 1972 in accommodation

for our sick people are programmes completed that were set in motion

long before these people captured office with 39 per cent of the

popular vote in 1972. However, that's fine.

I would just like to say to the Minister of Health before I get on

to the main subject under health which is really a local issue to a

degree, but I think it's going to be provincial, it's what are you

going to do with the Foulkes Report?

You gave us a song and dance that it cost $760,000 and what we would

like to know on this side is when you are going to do anything about it

because whether you are or not, it has cost the taxpayers of this

province a lot of money and we should be hearing some policy out of you

pretty soon. As a matter of fact, even some legislation if everything

was so bad from the bad days from '72 and prior to that. You should be

rushing right in with legislation right now. You haven't got anything

ready. Nothing at all.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, the doctors of the province want to know

how soon it is they have to go on salary. I don't think you should keep

them in

[ Page 106 ]

suspense so long if you're not going to use the Foulkes report; well

tell us. But don't keep all these hard-working innocent people in

suspense all the time as you love to do.

I now would like to leave that

section for a minute and go into what

concerns me the most in this amendment. It's the fact, Mr. Speaker,

that I think that our public health services are the finest. I've

always thought so and I still think so, and I refer to the public

health services that are given to the citizens of British Columbia.

But we have had a sad experience that I'm afraid is going to

jeopardize this. In the Cariboo in the last couple of months, and only

recently brought to my attention, I refer to the dismissal of a public

health nurse from 100 Mile House by the name of Mrs. Vaness. Mrs.

Vaness was dismissed, I'm not sure when, but I believe November, and

all the citizens of the Cariboo are up in arms over this dismissal, and

they have done something about this. They have communicated with

government people, including the Minister, and he has said that the

decision is correct.

I just want to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister,

that there's something wrong here when the total community gets up in

arms over one public health nurse. I think the wrong is in the public

health service of the Department of Health.

Now, this lady was apparently dismissed for the use of a government

car. I don't know why. As I say, this public health nurse had 12 years

of experience and this is the reason given — really she was not

dismissed, she was forced into signing a resignation letter. Pressure

was applied by senior people in the Department of Health and I think

this is pretty shabby when this lady has been really the doctor for

this rural area. I'm glad to see the Premier come in, Mr. Speaker,

because...

Mr. Phillips: He was out all afternoon.

Mr. Fraser: ...I remember when he took up the case of an

unfortunate lady two or three years ago and I imagine he'll be

interested in this one now that he's the Premier of the province. I

also understand that he got correspondence about this as well.

But the facts are, in this case, that Mrs. Vaness is the only

breadwinner in the family. As I say, as far as I can ascertain, has

been a public health nurse for 12 years, four years located at 100 Mile

House in the Cariboo.

To anybody from the rural country, you will realize that these

public health nurses are looked on with the highest respect all over

the province, because they go into remote areas that even the good

doctors won't go in to bring health delivery care to its citizens. I

would like to ask the Minister of Health to take another look at this

case because I think somebody has made a real bad judgment.

I might say, on the use of government cars which this lady was

apparently dismissed for, is that it's my understanding that the public

servants in British Columbia even go shopping at three o'clock in the

afternoon with government cars and I resent the fact that a dedicated

public servant in the case of this lady who has to use her car after

hours on the job, should be used as a scapegoat by somebody that is

playing pretty nasty games.

I'm not suggesting that the Minister is playing nasty games, but

somebody is, and this lady has had very unfair treatment from the

Department of Health and more specifically the Assistant Deputy

Minister of Public Health Services who flew up to Williams Lake, called

the lady in and said: "You will be dismissed unless you sign this

resignation letter or write us a letter of resignation." This is

actually what happened.

The lady said she was too upset with the news and she was not going

to write a letter of resignation. She was advised that the letter would

be typed for her. It was signed, and the great doctor flew back to

Victoria very satisfied with his mission.

I'm not going to read all the letters I've had on this case, and it

just blew up since January, since the beginning of this year as far as

I'm concerned. But I would like to read from what the United Church

minister of 100 Mile House has written to me about this case:

"RE: Mrs. Freda Vaness, R.N., former public health nurse at 100 Mile House.

"I am writing you to say how very upset I am over the

circumstances under which Mrs. Freda Vaness was forced to resign her

post and to urge you as our concerned Member for Cariboo to take

whatever action you can in seeing that our case can be given the

closest scrutiny.

"Could it be that Freda Vaness is being made a

scapegoat by the government workers in B.C. who use government vehicles

for private purposes, but who never are reported.

"To date no investigation has been made at the local

level in this matter, despite Mr. Cocke's claim that our case has been

investigated to his satisfaction.

"Please apply some pressure where you can and thank you for your concern."

That's signed, "J.H. Lindquist, United Church minister, 100 Mile House."

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that's correct and the reason I brought

it up on the floor of the House is the simple reason that the Hon.

Minister has already declined any further and I urge him in view of

this that he now take another look at this case.

I don't know what I would recommend, but have an investigation or inquiry. There is something not

[ Page 107 ]

right in this whole procedure. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

is not getting a full story and justice has not been meted out properly

here.

That's about all I have to say on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, just

to say when I sit down that I will be supporting the amendment when the

time comes to move. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly not going to

speak for any length of time on this amendment. I think the amendment

is a disgrace to this House.

Mr. Chabot: So are you.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Member, coming from you, that's very nice.

Anyway, I do think, however, that this House is going to have to get

out of a habit that developed since that group has been in our

position, and I think it's a downright bad habit, and that is

criticizing the civil service on the floor of the House. There is no

warrant for that. The Member could have come to my office and discussed

this. The woman has now been embarrassed publicly and incidentally

she's working at the hospital.

I've looked into this case because of the fact that it was brought

to my attention, but not by that Member. Why didn't he come to my

office, and then if there's a conflict, bring it to the floor of the

House?

But, Mr. Speaker, it's a very, very bad tendency for this House to

start.... You know, they're talking about hacks and backs and all

sorts. The Assistant Deputy Minister has been that for some years, and

is a very responsible individual, incidentally. I find it disgraceful

that we have these kind of discussions on the floor of the House where

we embarrass all sorts of people needlessly and if that's what politics

is to you Mr. Member, it certainly isn't that to me, and you're a

disgrace over there, you too.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): It seems like almost the

first time I've had the pleasure of addressing you in this particular

session, although we had a brief discussion I believe yesterday.

I would like to say, and I'm not going to reflect upon any vote that

was taken in the House, that we proposed an amendment which has nothing

to do with 1952-1962 or even up to the end of 1972.

It would seem that the party presently in the seat of government

have a hard time distinguishing between their duties now as leaders and

government of this province and their positions and duties as Members

of opposition.

Because we have heard the type of debate take place in this House

and this amendment and the subamendment that was proposed which did

nothing to enhance the position of the government or even suggest to

the people who must have been listening and watching, that they have

any right to call themselves government. Because the fact of the matter

is this: you do have to take responsibility now. You are elected as

government. Right.

It's unfortunate that the Members of the cabinet have not really

found out that concept themselves. Because with the elective office

goes the responsibility. With the office that we now occupy goes the

responsibility of bringing to the attention of the government the

things that people are saying to us when we meet with them in the

street.

That was the reason for this amendment, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of

the House yesterday and that is the reason that we spoke to it

yesterday and again this afternoon. It is obvious that in less than two

years the people who used to sit in opposition and tell us many of the

things that they thought they knew better than the government of that

day did have lost sight, those people, of the little people in the

street. The people that are concerned about education.

It was a legitimate amendment, offered in a spirit of concern,

because we know people are concerned about education in the Province of

British Columbia. T