1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1285 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British

Columbia (Bill 50). Mr. Cummings. Introduction and first reading —

Bee Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading —

Oral Questions

Crisis in the beef industry. Mr. Bennett — 1285

Increased indemnity for MLAs. Mr. Wallace — 1286

Game management areas. Hon. Mr. Radford answers — 1287

Report on refinery by Thurber Consultants Ltd. Mr. McClelland —

Guarantee on Alberta crude. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1287

Possible strike of IBEW. Mr. Phillips — 1288

BCGEU wage settlements. Mr. McGeer — 1289

Committee of Supply:

Department of Education estimates

On vote 38.

Mr. Schroeder

— 1289

Mr. Curtis — 1293

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1295

Mr. Wallace — 1299

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1303

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1305

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1305

Mr. McGeer — 1306

Mrs. Webster — 1309

Ms. Sanford — 1311

Mr. Fraser — 1313

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1314

Mr. Schroeder — 1315

MONDAY, APRIL 14, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have

visiting with us in the gallery today Val Berry and Dr. Jeff

Battersby from the City of Revelstoke. I would ask the House to

extend a warm welcome to them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to introduce to the House today a young man from

the federal riding of Yorkton-Melville who would like to lead

this very great party to government in Canada. It's probably

the last time I will have the opportunity to say something nice

about Lorne Nystrom, so I'd like the House to join me in saying

welcome to Lorne Nystrom to the B.C. Legislature.

MR. G.B. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour to ask the House today to welcome two groups

from North Vancouver: first of all, Mr. Wiranen, with a group

of 30 students from St. Thomas Aquinas high school; secondly,

the president of the North Vancouver–Capilano Liberal

Association, Mr. Bob Butler, his wife Shirley and their

family.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome another group of government agents who are

visiting Victoria to observe the Legislature in its usual

normal practice: Mr. Doug Roberts from Revelstoke, Mr. Arnie

Sherwood from Rossland, Mr. Doug Drew from Salmon Arm, Mr.

Collison from Burns Lake, Mrs. Joanne James from Stewart, Mr.

Ken Booth from Terrace, Mr. John Hornell from Ucluelet, Mr.

Peter Block from Vancouver, Mr. Art Nelson from Vernon, Mr. Ken

Weir from Williams Lake, Mr. George Brodie from Nelson, Mr. Roy

Allen from Creston and Mr. Vic Gaspard from Powell River.

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

House to welcome a group of students along with their teacher

from Clearbrook Junior Secondary school in Clearbrook, B.C.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE

THE INSTITUTE OF ACCREDITED PUBLIC

ACCOUNTANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Cummings, Bill 50,

An Act to Incorporate

the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

BEE ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Stupich, Bill 45, Bee Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Oral questions.

CRISIS IN BEEF INDUSTRY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Minister of

Agriculture: in view of the many difficulties being encountered

by British Columbia beef producers this past winter and

difficulties this spring, can the Minister advise the House

what total sum has been offered to these beef producers under

the farm income assurance programme?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Negotiations

are still going on, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: Could the Minister confirm to the House that at

a meeting held last Friday with the Minister, beef producers

informed the Minister that they would require between $8

million and $9 million under this farm income assurance

programme for 1974 alone?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Many figures were talked about at the

meeting on Friday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Apart from the actual income

guarantee, has the Minister any programme to assist beef

producers due to the problems they are now encountering due to

a very late spring and extremely high prices for hay?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I heard that I was going to be getting a

request with respect to the hay problem in one area of the

province — from one of the Members of the House, actually. I've

had no communication from any of the cattlemen yet, but I do

know there is a problem and I expect I'll be hearing a lot more

about it. So far there is no programme.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I take the Minister's response as

being that he would be quite willing to consider any programme

brought forward by the cattlemen, specifically on this very

immediate problem?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, usually it is

[ Page 1286 ]

not a case of them coming forward with a programme but

coming forward for assistance. Then I consider whether or not a

programme should be developed to meet the need at the time.

I'll certainly look at it when it is brought before me

officially.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In light of the

Minister's statement previously on income assurance, will the

Minister confirm that when the cattlemen's negotiating

committee suggested that on the basis of the agreed income

assurance formula programme the cost would be approximately $15

million for the two years, the Minister then specifically

stated that the province would not go for that amount of

money?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, many things were said in that

four-hour discussion; many figures were talked about. No

decisions of any kind were made and no positive positions were

adopted by either party. Negotiations are still going on.

MRS. JORDAN: Did the Minister say that? All I want to know

is whether the Minister said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Confirm it or deny it.

MRS. JORDAN: Or would the Minister confirm that he stated

that the $7 million figure was based on a formula whereby the

cattle industry represented 20 per cent of the total

agricultural products in British Columbia? Did you say that? We

just want to know if you said these things.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to either

confirm or deny that any one statement was made in the course

of a four-hour discussion without repeating the whole

discussion to put that statement in perspective.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister have a new case of

amnesia?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It would appear

that there is a very serious situation existing in the

beef-producing industry in British Columbia. The Minister has

told us that these negotiations are ongoing and he has declined

to confirm or deny specific figures which were mentioned. How

soon does he anticipate that this matter will be resolved, in

view of the crisis in the industry?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in the beef industry

that is worldwide. It is rather interesting to note, I think, that it is just

a year and a half since consumers were boycotting beef because it was so high

in price; now the federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Whelan) is so pleased

that people are buying this cheap beef. There is a crisis worldwide. There is

a crisis in B.C. The cattlemen asked for a week to prepare a new position before

coming back for further discussions. I was quite pleased to grant that, although

I did point out that as far as the government is concerned, we are anxious to

bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. The cattlemen also are

anxious.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental to the Minister….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Oh, come on.

MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry the questions annoy the Minister of

Health. Has a ceiling been set by the government in terms of

the total dollars that it could make available? If yes, what is

that ceiling?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, that ceiling will be set by

the House if we ever get to that point in estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister mentioned that the negotiating

committee had gone away with a week to review their position

and come back. Did the Minister advise the cattlemen's

negotiating committee before they left that the model upon

which they have been basing their negotiations was now changed?

In other words, has the Minister introduced a new model upon

which the income assurance programme for cattlemen would be

based since the negotiations originally began? Did you advise

them of this on Friday?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Both parties have changed their position.

Negotiations started some months ago and no doubt there will be

continual changes in position between the two parties until

agreement has been reached.

INCREASED INDEMNITY FOR MLAs

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

of questioning to the Minister of Finance who spent last week in Ottawa and

has his Tory blue shirt on today, I notice.

In the light of continuing severe inflation and in the light

of his reported conversation behind closed doors with Prime

Minister Trudeau, in which he confirms his rejection of wage

and price control, is the Minister having discussions within

his cabinet about an increase in remuneration to the MLAs in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've been all prepared for a

question on gas prices, but for some reason the opposition is

not asking me. I know they

[ Page

1287 ]

were very interested before I left for Ottawa, but now

silence. I'm shocked.

Nonetheless, after our great victory on a new gas price,

none of that money will be used to increase the indemnities of

MLAs.

MR. WALLACE: In that case, is the Minister of Finance giving

any consideration to introducing legislation which would give

MLAs collective bargaining rights and the right to strike?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you can't have a strike

unless you prove you've been working.

GAME MANAGEMENT AREAS

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, I too was reluctant to get up a little earlier; I

thought the opposition may have more questions to direct to the

Premier. However, in answer to a question from the Member for

Columbia River last Thursday — it was in regard to the

expansion of the 28 game management areas to 201 management

units: can the Minister advise how these small units will be

managed, and also, how will a hunter be able to identify which

small unit he's in?

I'm glad to see that the Member is aware of this. I wasn't

sure he would be up on this. However, Mr. Member, the areas

will be managed to a greater degree than in the past. They will

be broken down into smaller areas, as I've said. Also, the

usual series of maps on resource regions and showing management

units will be put into effect as always.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Can the Minister tell me

whether the game will be confined to the respective units, and

will the game be tagged with the unit numbers?

HON. MR. RADFORD : I'm sure the Member is cognizant of

the fact that our previous 28 game management areas consisted of very large

areas. For example, Vancouver Island was one game management area. When we break

it down into 15 areas, we will be able to manage the game more consistently

through the areas they are in. For example, rather than basing game management

in an area of northern Vancouver Island, which would be made applicable to south

Vancouver Island, we can break it down and manage it more intensely.

MR. CHABOT: Just one short supplementary. How will the

hunter identify which region he's in? Will there be assigned a

conservation officer to inform him?

HON. MR. RADFORD: There will be the usual conservation officers. I might

say, as you know, they have been greatly increased in number in the last two

or three years.

REPORT ON REFINERY

BY THURBER CONSULTANTS LTD.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was worried about

not getting any questions. I thought the Member for Oak Bay was

asking a question about the increased price of gas when he

talked about increased salaries for MLAs. (Laughter.)

Since the Premier made the announcement about the new

proposal for a B.C. refinery, to cost some $350 million, would

the Premier tell the House whether or not the government has

received an environmental study for this proposed refinery — done for the government by Thurber Consultants Ltd. of

Victoria?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've asked for a number of studies, Mr.

Member. When the studies are completed, they'll be available.

What I find shocking is some individual MLAs running around

attacking the project before the research has been completed. I

find that shocking.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that isn't the question I

asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's the answer I gave.

MR. McCLELLAND: I asked whether or not the government has

received a study done by Thurber Consultants Ltd. of Victoria.

I'd also like to ask the Premier if it's not true that Thurber

Consultants Ltd. of Victoria was asked to do an environmental

study, and whether or not the Thurber consultants were told to

study only a site in the lower mainland and no other anywhere

in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know the answer to that.

MR. McCLELLAND: You don't know the answer to that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I expect the B.C. Petroleum Corp. to

make that advice to us.

GUARANTEE ON ALBERTA CRUDE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Finance and Premier:

has the Premier and Minister of Finance received any written

assurance from the Premier of Alberta, or the Minister

responsible for energy matters in Alberta, or any other high

official in Alberta, that we will have a guaranteed supply

[ Page 1288 ]

crude from that province for the new refinery without

cutting off existing refineries from their sources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, the talks are proceeding with

the proper Alberta authorities through the petroleum

corporation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I understand the answer is no, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not yes or no. Talks are proceeding.

Do you want to help in this project, or are you against it?

Talks are proceeding. That's what I said.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I want to know is whether we have a

guarantee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said that talks are proceeding.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then we have no guarantee.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary to the question by the Liberal

leader, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Premier whether or not

the government will cancel its plans for an oil refinery if a

long-term commitment from Alberta for a supply of crude oil is

not received in writing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me announce to everybody

some basic logic. If there's no oil, you can't have a refinery.

I promise you that if we don't have oil we won't build a

refinery.

MR. McCLELLAND: From Alberta? From Alberta, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, did the

Premier, when he made his public announcement in Ottawa with

respect to this refinery, say that it would be using Alberta

crude oil?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no way that we will be using oil

from Alaska as rumoured — as I heard — in Ottawa. There is no

way we will be using oil in Alaska. There's no way we will be

using oil in Alaska. Now when I see the papers tomorrow and I

don't see that correctly, then I'll know something's really

wrong.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the

Premier the same question? Did he say in Ottawa…

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's no way we will use oil from

Alaska.

MR. McGEER: …that he would be using Alberta oil for that

refinery? I thought I heard him say that in Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no way we will be using oil from

Alaska. We will be using oil, hopefully, from Alberta. Perhaps

we'll find a big well in British Columbia. But we will not

build an oil refinery unless we have oil to put in it.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): If it was hot air you

were looking for you wouldn't have to look very far. I'd like

to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much will you sell it for?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! I understand that the

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has a

supplementary.

Would you defer to your colleague, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd just like to ask the Premier whether or

not the government has given any consideration to any crude oil

source involving transportation of supplies on B.C. coastal

waters, up or down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The answer is no. No.

POSSIBLE STRIKE OF IBEW

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct a question to the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who is also a

director of B.C. Hydro. Would the Minister advise this House if

the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is in a

legal position to strike against B.C. Hydro and Power Authority

at this time? We don't want the lights out.

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

It's my understanding, yes, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise the House if any

contingency plans are being discussed with the union in case

there is a legal strike?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is a management position, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 1289 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister is advising the House, then, that

contingency plans are underway to keep the generators rolling

in British Columbia?

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

BCGEU WAGE SETTLEMENTS

MR. McGEER: A question to the Provincial Secretary. With

respect to the wage settlements in the public service soon to

be announced by the Provincial Secretary, will these wage

settlements be within the consensus guidelines recommended at

the federal/provincial conference, and, particularly, will they

be within the 33.3 per cent pay increase that will go to

MPs?

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

settlements the Member referred to go back to settlements that

were first signed before that federal/provincial conference. I

expect that the percentage increases you'll all work out, using

your slide-rules and your elementary knowledge of mathematics,

will vary as much as the usual responses of the opposition to

problems like this. I will be tabling — or at least filing with

the House — the reports at close of business tonight. I want to

assure the House that the average settlement conducted with the

13 components of the B.C. Government Employees Union is below

the average for the last three months in the sector of British

Columbia.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, a point of order

and a question to the acting House Leader. We have now the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in the House. Their

estimates have been put aside. We are now dealing with yet

another Minister. I wonder whether the Hon. Minister of

Education and acting House Leader could inform us what the

policy and practice will be for dealing with estimates. We are

departing substantially from previous practice. We have

Ministers here whose estimates are half-finished. I wonder

whether she could tell us what the plans are.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Yes, very shortly. In fact,

we hope before the end of this week we will have a

schedule for all Members

of the House which will outline the order in which all Ministers will be called.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Every one will be called.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the same point of order. The acting

House Leader dealt with the question of how they will be

called. Do I understand, therefore, that any Minister whose

estimates have not been completed before the date or time for

calling of the next Minister will simply have his estimates put

aside?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: To the Hon. Member: we will be able to

come back to them.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): On the same point of

order: what will happen if the time limit, the closure rule

that you brought into the House, is out and we don't have time

to come back? Will the House Leader advise the House what will

happen then?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I believe you know the rules, and we will

make every attempt to see that everyone has an opportunity.

MR. PHILLIPS: In other words, there is no way they will ever

get debated. The end of freedom in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): "Educational change" was a

phrase made very very popular by the present Minister of

Education when she was in opposition. As a Matter of fact, in a

1972 issue of The Democrat the outline for change was

laid down on paper and it says that the NDP government will

establish a continuing education committee to work with the

Minister and the Department of Education in making overall

educational and policy changes. The big word — not only in the

publishing of The Democrat but in the election platform — the big word upon this government taking power, was the word

"change." Educational change.

I have quoted the Minister before as having said while she

was in opposition that she believed not only was change

possible but that change should be able to be effected just

with the issuing of an edict. You just bring about a decision.

You say "change will take place" and zap! change takes place

just like that. She wasn't in office too many weeks until she

came back with a different conclusion. She said: "Change

doesn't happen as quickly as I first thought that it

[ Page 1290 ]

would."

The same changes that she was insisting on while she was in

opposition and the same changes that she believed would happen

overnight, she suddenly found almost impossible to effect.

The few questions that I want to ask in this first segment

of time have to do with: Are there not enough areas of

opportunity for change? Is there not enough need for change?

Does the department not have the capacity for change? What is

the now nearly three-year record of change in this department?

What are the reasons for no change — the reasons cited and the

real reasons? There are the areas I wish to cover in this first

30-minute segment. I trust to be finished by three minutes

after 3 o'clock.

First of all, are there not enough areas in the department

that provide an opportunity for change? I think Members on this

side of the House would be the first to admit that change in an

educational department is an ongoing process. I don't think

that there is anyone in this party who would deny that on

August 30, 1972, change was not necessary. I don't suppose

you'll find anyone to deny that; just as we can go to that side

of the House today and find no one who will say that the

department is not in need of change today.

Here are the areas — I cite perhaps 10 areas — that provide

fantastic opportunity for change. First of all, education

basics, namely literacy. When you have universities, colleges,

high schools, parents, industrialists, commercial enterprises

and politicians all saying: "We have a shortage, an absence of

literacy, in the province," then, surely, here is an

area wide open to effect educational change — the area of

basics — literacy, the three 'Rs' or whatever you like to call

it so you can recognize it.

There's another area that provides an opportunity for

change; it is options in curriculum. I believe that basic

curricula shall, would and must be established by the

department.

This basic curriculum should include all of those subjects

which are acceptable and do not become an affront to any of the

school districts within the province. This should be called

"basic curriculum," and even in this basic there are

plenty of opportunities for change. There should be options

provided in the curriculum, but not at the expense of basic

literacy. It seems to me that as I've had the opportunity to

analyse the result of our educational system…. By the way,

this is not only the result of the last two and a half years of

our education department; this has happened over maybe the last

10 or 12 years. But as we analyse it, it appears that we have

had so much of an emphasis on innovation and so great an

emphasis on change that the basics are what has suffered.

There's a difference from what I read in the 1972 issue of The Democrat , whereby

the previous administration is accused of being rather stagnant in its attitude

towards change, and that innovation was almost a nonentity. That's what I get

out of page 22 of The Democrat . The truth is, perhaps, that in those years we

already had too much innovation and that more innovation, particularly in the

basic curriculum, would only serve to inflame the already amazing level of illiteracy

that we have in the province.

There's an area for educational change in the options of

curriculum. There was a fantastic opportunity for this

government to move into the area of decentralization, to ensure

local autonomy. Yet here's an area with all of this opportunity for change,

and we have seen movements in the opposite direction of

decentralization, although that was the affirmed position of

this party when it came to power.

There's another area for opportunity to effect changes, and

that is in the area of local involvement. More and more in

education the system is being directed from the top. More and

more the decisions are made in the Minister's office — more

often made in offices beneath the Minister's office — and

imposed upon the system. Local involvement, an area where,we

could have effected change, is an area where the people

themselves, whose children are in the education system and

whose children are in the education system and whose original

responsibility it is for the education of those children, are

suddenly feeling left out of the entire process. Here is an

opportunity for change: local involvement.

The fifth area that I have listed is the changes that needed

to be effected in the research area: the feeder system, the new

ideas that should come in at the department level, new ideas

that perhaps have been tested and tried in other areas, the

experiments that have been carried out in other jurisdictions.

These new concepts that could be fed into our system — here's an

area of fantastic opportunity for change.

Then there was the area of special education. Special

education is generally understood to refer to an area of

education for the handicapped. But I believe that special

education should be evolved into meaning education for all

except those within the parentheses of what we call the norm.

We should have special education for those who have learning

disabilities, yes. But where is the special opportunity, the

equal opportunity, for those whose capacity for learning if

above and beyond that which we would call within the

parentheses of the norm?

What about the exceptional children that are not exceptional

in terms of their handicap as we have learned to know it but

who are exceptional because of yet another handicap, excessive

capacity for learning? These are the children who experience

the greatest boredom in our educational system. These are the

ones who have the greatest capacity not only for learning but

also for any other field which they

[ Page 1291 ]

happen to choose. If, because of their boredom, Mr.

Chairman, they choose an area that is counter-productive, even

criminal, then they are just as adept and their capacity is

just as great in that area as it is if, through education, we

could direct that capacity into a productive channel.

There was a fantastic opportunity for change in this

direction. Not only that, but the department stands as it does

today with fallow ground in the area of enriched

teacher-training. As a result of some decisions made by this

department greater onus has been placed upon the teacher,

particularly as it affects classroom discipline, and the

teacher has not been given an enriched training course so that

she or he understands and knows how to handle the new

responsibilities that have been thrust upon him. Here is an

opportunity for change — an enriched teacher-training

programme.

One of the areas that seems to have been thrown into

reckless abandon is an area which certainly this Minister

should be concerned with and an area in which change must take

place, and that is the area of educational cost.

There must be controlled costs. Costs cannot be allowed to

skyrocket, to spiral, so that if they increase at their present

rate they can be seen within a 10-year period of time to

encompass all the revenue sources of the province. It would be

a shame.

It is another shame that in costs, as uncontrolled as they

happen to be in the year 1975, it has gotten to the place where

the Minister of Education has had to say that, even though our

revenue sources have increased by 50 per cent and instead of

$2.1 billion we have a $3.2 billion expected revenue, in this

year we have had to cut back on commitments that we have made —

namely pupil-teacher ratio and the removal of taxation from

residential and farm property. We have had to abandon both of

those plans in a year in which we have got a 50 per cent

increase in revenue. My word, if in this year we can't afford

to carry out our plans, what kind of a year must we have before

we can afford to carry out our reduction in pupil-teacher

ratio? There is an area for change to be effected, Mr.

Chairman, and it is in the area of controlled costs.

Another opportunity is the area of student responsibility and student self-discipline.

One of the reasons for classroom boredom, one of the reasons for the dropout

situation, one of the reasons why teachers are taking early retirement, one

of the reasons for the lack-of-discipline climate in the classroom is one of

an absence of a sense of student responsibility. Some people call it self-discipline,

as though self-discipline is something that you learn by osmosis by the very

fact that you are in a classroom, as if self-discipline is something that you

learn just because you happen to be looking between the covers of a book or

as if self-discipline is something that you acquire just because you walk through

the doors of a public institution called "school." Self-discipline is something

that is learned by practice, and that practice must first of all have been imposed

upon that student. It is perhaps something that wasn't even desirable as far

as that student was concerned in his learning process. Self-discipline doesn't

happen by itself. Nonetheless, an opportunity for change in our Department of

Education is this area of imparting responsibility to the student.

Another area of change that I have listed here is a change

that would lead to financial equity between the rural and the

urban components in our school districts.

Those are the areas in which changes could have been

effected. Is there a need for this change at all? Just because

the opportunity happens to be there is not enough reason to

effect change, but is the need there? Let's take a look at

that. I have seven evidences here that suggest the need is not

only present but outstanding. This educational system is

convulsive, and it begs for a change, looking for some way out.

Is there some way that we can recover from the stage to which

we have descended? That system itself is convulsive and it begs

for a change.

The students are rebellious, and they beg for a change. How

do they evidence this rebellion? They say that education as

they see it now is not relevant. The courses that are left as

an option to them do not lead to productive employment, and as a

result they say: "What I have to study is something I'll never

have to use." It's irrelevant and they rebel against it.

As a matter of fact, class attendance in our particular high

schools is shocking. When students enrol and are given the

understanding that their grades will not be affected until they

have missed more than 10 classes, it is almost as if the system

is issuing a licence for them not to attend classes. It's

shocking then how the student, after having missed his 10

classes, still sees no reason why he should not get credit for

his course. I know of one student, very, very close to me, who

has missed 19 classes out of a mathematics course only because

the student sees the course as irrelevant, non-challenging.

Nineteen classes have been missed. Then there is an appeal to

the classroom teacher, and the student comes away from the

class with an A in the course.

The students are rebelling against the system and are

begging for a change. Graduates are revealing an inadequacy and

they insist on a change when 40 per cent cannot even

successfully pass a basic literacy examination. They come away

from it thoroughly frustrated and thoroughly embarrassed, and

because of their embarrassment insist on some changes in our

public schools system. Parents, on an increasing basis, are

demanding alternatives. Whenever anyone insists on an

alternative to whatever they have now, it already insists that

they are not happy with what

[ Page 1292 ]

they now have. It should be more than a hint that change is

needed when parents are increasingly demanding

alternatives.

It would be a shame if our public school system would

deteriorate just because we could not provide those

alternatives within the system. There is a need for a

change.

Teachers are frustrated. They express the need for change

through their high salary demands. It's another way of saying:

"I am unhappy with my position. I believe that somehow or

other, if I was compensated to a greater degree, then maybe I

could tolerate my position."

If you talk to them as individuals, there are very few who

will deny that their level of earning is adequate. There are

very few who will deny that perhaps they are in the upper

echelons of earning in their own particular area. Yet year by

year, don't you see it happen? And we are expecting it to

happen again this year. Year by year they come, through their

leaders, asking for even-increasing increases. As a result,

what do we conclude? The teachers, through their frustrations,

are begging for a change and seek in the most audible way to

talk to the system about that change by requiring more from the

system.

Supervisors, directors, departmental officials are all

eagerly awaiting and expecting a refreshing change. Why?

Because they are aware of the great need.

Society is rejecting the product of the present system to an

increasing degree and declares them "unready" or "unfit" to

take their place in society. As a result, there is no doubt of

the need for change.

What about the capacity for change in this department? When

this Minister first came to power, true to form, true to what

she said she would do, she appointed the two commissions that

were referred to in her platform — the two commissions on

education, one of public education and the other on

post-secondary education. Just one short question: where are

they now? It was to be a continuing programme according to

this, a continuing programme of education commissions. Where

are they today? How long did they last? What has happened to

the capacity for change within the department that was embodied

in those two commissions? It's gone.

The next thing that happened was the appointment of the

commissioner to handle those two commissions which was to

provide the capacity for change. Where's the commissioner? He's

gone. We've talked loud and long about it.

One of the other areas which would provide for a great capacity for change

within the department was one of public input. Do you remember — that was the

big word of 1973: input, input. We wanted input from the public. We wanted input

from the teachers' federation, We wanted input from the school trustees' association.

We created committees and made some long ballyhoo about it being the first time

committees were to be operative and travel throughout the province. We were

creating great capacity within the department for change, but where is that

capacity today?

We said in 1974 that what we were going to do was to develop

a separate department called R & D. We would develop this

department so that the Education department would have a great

capacity for change. That particular department was born in the

fall of 1974. By Christmastime it was already shattered. By

January it lay in ruins. The research department which was to

provide the capacity for change no longer exists. Where is it

now? I ask the Minister to tell us when she stands to her feet.

What is our capacity for change today? Where is the research

now?

She said in one of her releases that we have a number of

researches — 11, I think — in other departments. gut their

effectiveness is clearly cited for us in a later release in

which she appoints Dr. Pedersen, whose responsibility it is —

what, to add capacity to change? No — to find within the

department somewhere by some magic that there should have been

and had begun to be developed by the Minister is non-existent

today.

There are other branches of research that can be utilized.

The Educational Research Institute of British Columbia, which

is an independent association, and should ever remain thus, is

an arm that provides for capacity for change. All the task

forces, the study groups, reflect some capacity for change.

Along came the White Paper. The White Paper was supposed to

be the Messiah for the educational department; the coming

Prince of Peace was supposed to be embodied in this little

thing called the White Paper. Great capacity for change! Change

again was the key word within the paper. However, of the five

major directives given in the paper, two have been acted upon,

three are the ones about which we are going to have serious

questions during the discussion of these estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: She left the room.

MR. SCHROEDER: She's no longer there. She is gone with the

commission, the commissioners, with the research department.

Our capacity for change today is less than it was on the day

that this lady took this post. I am saying that if her dreams

for change are to take place, there is going to have to be a

reincarnation of the capacity for change.

I would like to talk about the record change, but my light

is going to be green in just about a minute and a half. The

record change is shocking, so much so that over this three

years minus four months discipline in the classroom is diluted;

teacher control

[ Page 1293 ]

is dissipated; school boards have been ostracized, called

irresponsible; teachers have become disenchanted because the

department has reneged on its promise in such things as class

size, student-teacher ratio. Taxpayers are weighted down. They

are disenchanted because the government has reneged on

supposedly lessening tax burdens. Instead, mill rates have

increased this year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are on your final two minutes, Mr.

Member.

MR. SCHROEDER: Responsibility has been loaded heavily upon

their shoulders — I've got a minute to go, right? — and the

taxpayer, instead of having a lessening burden, is having an

increased burden. As a result, what has happened? People from

all around the province have asked for the ultimate in change.

They have asked for the release of this Minister from her

portfolio. Not only editors but also teachers, teachers'

federation, school trustees' federations, parents, home and

school and politicians have asked for the release of this

Minister.

As a result, I have no alternative today but to make this

motion: that the salary of the Hon. Minister of Education as

provided for in vote 38, be reduced by $1. This is moved, and

seconded by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis).

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion in order.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I have a few

remarks to make in supporting this amendment. There are so many

matters relating to education upon which we can touch later or

under other portions of the Department of Education vote.

In supporting the motion moved by the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack, I must also refer to the absence of change (that

is, any useful change) within the department under the

direction of this Minister, and also refer to the fundamental

issue of promises unfulfilled — promises advanced by the NDP so

vocally, prior to the August, 1972, election, reiterated again

and again following that party coming to power in 1972.

Mr. Chairman, it's a very sorry record, when one steps back

and examines it — a very sorry record in the educational

history of British Columbia of decisions reversed, of

indecision on the part of this Minister and the government with

which she is associated. Directions changed and changed and

changed again. Vacuums created. Hirings in haste and firings in

even greater haste. Firing by television, as we've spoken of

from time to time. Commissions established, and then

neutralized.

Yet what do we see in the 103rd annual report of the Department of Education,

which was presented by this Minister just a short while ago after this session

started? In the third paragraph of the statement from the covering letter of

the Minister: "During the school year ended June 30, 1974, much major policy

implementation did in fact take place." It sounds defensive, Mr. Chairman. To

continue the quote at that paragraph: "All of it was designed to bring about

a synthesis of the best in the established education system, with new concepts

and practices that have developed in recent years." Words, not actions. Words,

Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) spoke about

capacity for change, and we heard this phrase so often from the

Minister, both in this House and in her news releases. One

short line in this report: "Another addition was a research and

development division." End of quote. "Another addition was a

research and development commission." We heard so much about

the R & D group and how well they were going to function,

how effectively they were going to tackle some new problems in

education — some old problems as well — in British

Columbia.

Even the B.C. Teachers Federation newsletter for March of

this year, in a little box appearing on the front page of its

publication, says:

"Education finance is in a mess.

"The government did not provide sufficient funds to maintain

existing programmes, including teachers already hired to reduce

the PTR in 1974-75; did not provide any money to, reduce the

PTR in 1975-76."

The Minister has told us since this session started that

that is not correct. I hope when she takes her place that she

will carefully outline for us where that money is.

To continue the BCTF statement:

"Last year the government did tinker with board budgets,

through supplementary grants with secret guidelines. This year

the government has failed to give boards any indication of any

tax relief through any one of these means — homeowner grants,

tax rebates, supplementary grants. The result? If no further

changes in final budgets are made and no supplementary grants

are provided the following will occur:

"(

a) districts with similar educational needs will have

widely different pupil-teacher ratios;

"(

b) districts with greater educational needs — i.e.,

isolated, small schools, with higher proportions of immigrant

children or children from poor families — will frequently have

higher pupil-teacher ratios than districts with less pressing

needs;

"(

c) mill rates will vary tremendously from district to

district, increasing well beyond the 4.5 mills justified by

inflation;

"(

d) some districts will pay huge mill rate increases for no

appreciable improvement in

[ Page 1294 ]

their school systems."

"Education finance is in a mess. What needs to be done by

government? Provide money to maintain existing programmes,

provide money to continue the PTR reduction, provide money to hold local mill rate increases below 5 mills."

That's not the opposition speaking, Mr. Chairman, in this

Legislature. That is the British Columbia Teachers Federation,

in the March, 1975, newsletter: a continuing indictment of this

Minister's failure in the carrying out of her duties in the

portfolio of Education.

The name of the game must be getting down to basics. I don't

refer to reading, writing and arithmetic but getting down to

the basics in education. And it would appear that the Minister,

perhaps, in recent weeks may have come just slightly around to

appreciate this fact, but perhaps too late for her own

credibility in the teaching profession and in the community at

large. From university professors to the school trustees to

parents, that is the message, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister:

get down to the basics. Improve the product which is sent out

into the world after 12 or more years in our educational

system.

I've heard this mentioned by a number within the school

system. Are we getting value for our school tax dollars? But

even more important, and I underline this point: are our

students getting full value out of the system as it now exists?

We think not. And it would appear from the comments of many

parents and interested citizens that they also think not, that

they doubt the effectiveness and the value of the total

educational structure as presided over by this Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explore with you a fairly

local example to determine the magnitude of education costs in

British Columbia, and to do so as briefly as possible. The

impact of inflation admitted, and the very strong possibility

that we, the people, are not receiving full value for our

school tax dollars, the comparison may be helpful to you.

The 1974 total operating budget for School District 61, that

is the Greater Victoria School Board, the grand total, all up,

everything included — $34,659,372. According to page D148 in the

appendices of the 103rd annual report of the department, to

which I referred earlier, that $34.6 million budget in one

school district alone exceeds total provincial government

expenditures for education just 20 years earlier — the 1954-55

school year with an amount then of $34,279,000. To repeat: one

relatively major school district, No. 61, in the 1974 calendar

year spent more than the entire province spent towards the cost

of education just 20 years ago.

Then look at 1975. The anticipated total budget for great Victoria schools

in 1975 — and it has to be an estimate at this point because all the figures

are not yet available — will be between $39 million and $40 million. That's

1975, and it isn't that far short of the total government expenditure of just

over $41 million in all school districts just 20 years earlier. That is in the

school year of 1955-56.

Again, according to the Minister's annual report for the

school year ending 1973-74, total net enrolment 20 years ago

was 223,840. For the 1973-74 year, the school year net

enrolment had grown by about two and a half times. Do you have

that, Mr. Chairman? In 20 years, enrolment up by about two and

a half times in this province. Government expenditure in the

same 20-year period is more than 10 times, and that relates to

the 1973-74 school year. Now, I don't know what the net

enrolment is for the 1974-75 school year, but we're looking at

a total provincial budget in these votes of $754 million, a

provincial expenditure increase of more than 22 times the

amount for 1954-55.

Now, I've heard about inflation but those figures are

staggering. The increase for this fiscal year over the last,

just about 36.2 per cent, I believe, is, I think, one reason

why so many people are questioning. Are we receiving full value

for our provincial education dollar? I emphasize "provincial

dollar" because none of the comparisons I've used this

afternoon relate to the property tax. They deal only with the

provincial expense of 20 and 21 years ago and within the past

two years. No reference to the local property tax.

So the time may well have arrived, when one considers these

massive amounts of money, when we have to ask, regardless of the

party in power or the party in opposition, if perhaps the

portfolio of the Minister of Education hasn't reached the point

where the job should be split into two parts. Certainly the

dollars spent and the complexities of education have reached

the point where a second Minister could be most helpful. The

bureaucracy which we see evident in the department and in other

departments of governments is huge compared to the relatively

minor additional cost of a second Minister deal with

education In other words, what I'm talking about — and perhaps the

Minister will respond, although I'm sure she doesn't really

care for the amendment which has been put forward — is a

Minister of Education who would be assigned such things as

curriculum, programmes, the relationship with the B.C. Teachers

Federation and teachers, departmental staff; and then a second

Minister given the assignment of — not in order of importance —

locating new school sites, new construction, renovation of

existing buildings, equipment and finance, and the financial

relationship between the provincial Treasury and school boards

or school districts.

As I said earlier, I think the need can be justified and the

dual approach would work as long as the two Ministers, so

appointed, were capable of working together effectively. It

would appear that there is a

[ Page 1295 ]

problem, even in construction, to say nothing of the

relationship between the existing department and teachers,

administrative personnel and others.

I'd like to refer to the B.C. School Trustees Association

release of March of this year, which is headed: "Problems in

the Supply of Educational Facilities." I've read it several

times. It very carefully sets out the 51 steps necessary from

the time a school is first discussed until the building is

accepted — that's step No. 50 — and final payments are made,

step No. 51. There are 51 steps to build a school. Surely some

of this red tape can be cut through. Surely it would be more

effectively dealt with by a Minister who is in charge of this

side of the educational system and not so involved with the

total picture as this Minister has attempted to become.

I support the amendment with some regret because, as I've

heard a number of people say — people in the teaching profession

and the school boards, interested citizens — the Minister is a

pleasant person. The Minister is a pleasant person. A number of

people know that.

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: She doesn't agree? She doesn't care for the

platitude this afternoon, perhaps.

But we cannot, we simply cannot, let this vote pass without

expressing very real and sincere disappointment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, it's rather difficult,

really, to know where to start, because we've had so many

misinterpretations of statements made by various groups in this

province on education. Also, there has been very obvious

display by both the speakers from the official opposition of a

great lack of basic research on what has gone on in this

province in education.

I'd like to start off with what I thought was most

interesting. The official opposition spokesperson for education

led off with a condemnation of the heavy centralized control

which seems to be building up in this Department of Education.

Yet, after making that statement, he did not give one specific

example of this centralized control. If he has an opportunity

to speak again, I would like to hear some specific examples

instead of sweeping generalizations.

Then actually to have the Member from the Social Credit

Party lead off with a criticism of this government for

centralization is almost unbelievable. When we came into

government, the very first thing we were faced with was to

eliminate the heavy centralized control of the former

government in education. Yet here we have that Member standing

up stating that we are moving towards centralization, almost

suggesting that the former government gave a free hand to the

school boards.

Let us look at the record of the former government very

quickly and what we have done since we came in, which will

include a resume that I find necessary of some of the changes —

some. I frankly do not have time to stand here…. I would

need a whole day and maybe even an evening to run through the

changes in education which have been brought in by this

government. Yet they base their whole case on this amendment, I

gather, primarily on the fact that there has been nothing

happening in the department.

First of all, let us look at the basic things which had to

be done by any government which followed the government that

had been in power in this province for 20 years, and which

slowly, slowly emasculated the school boards of this province

from control over their own autonomy.

First of all, what did we have to do? We restored collective

bargaining to the teachers of this province. The former

government had selected the teachers alone, of all sectors of

society, for a freeze.

Then the next step: we removed the operating referendums.

The operating referendums, I believe, were the only ones we had

in Canada at that time, and I think we still don't have any.

This government imposed an operating referendum on the school

boards of this province. I remember when I was in opposition

the number of school board members who used to besiege our

offices every day asking us to assist in getting this removed.

There isn't one school trustee in this province today who would

not support the removal of that.

Capital referendum: this government also moved in on the

removal of capital referendums, not only for public schools but

for colleges.

Decentralization: the matter of decentralization…. It's

really ironic to listen to the Social Credit Members talk about

this area. We have decentralized and are moving in on the whole

area of the decentralization of curricula in this province. We

are assisting the school boards and the teachers' associations

to bring this about. But I do endorse the point made by one of

the former speakers who, I believe, was simply quoting what I

had said in the budget speech. I'm glad that you endorse

it.

It is that we as a provincial Department of Education must

maintain control over the basic core programmes. We have a

responsibility in that area; we have taken that responsibility

seriously. I give him due credit for pointing out, as the other

Member did not in his remarks, that the whole area of where we

stand today in functional skills is not something for which the

blame should be placed on the present government. It has been

built up right across Canada and the United States throughout

the 1960s. Starting very shortly we intend to initiate a

provincial survey of just where the students in this province

are in the areas of the functional skills.

[ Page 1296 ]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Right. We are moving on that directly.

Now let's talk some more about local control. Another area

on which we moved in was to allow districts with student

enrolments of over 20,000 to appoint local superintendents.

This has been asked for for years of the former government. No

action had ever been taken.

We have also gone further than that. I find it so absolutely

unbelievable to hear the opposition talking about this

increased heavy hand of centralization when every move we have

taken has been to give the opportunity to the educational

community, including the parents, to enter into decision-making

at the local level. I have encouraged the school boards of this

province to have the teachers sit in when the school board

budgets are being prepared. Never once did I hear this

encouragement being given by any former Ministers of Education

under the former government.

I have come out strongly for the opportunity for teachers to

sit in when the department review teams visit districts so that

they can participate and understand what the departmental

financial policies are.

When I was speaking to the B.C. Teachers Federation — and I

have given you all a copy of that speech — I made the point

that I was somewhat disconcerted at the BCTF newsletter from

which the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

quoted with such delight. That letter has a great number of

erroneous statements. We have already pointed out to the BCTF,

and it will be pointed out in the future newsletter of our own,

some of the grave misstatements in that. I think it is about

time it was done.

The newsletter will be an educational newsletter…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: …and it will have information which

should go out regarding not only financing but also educational

programmes. For example, that newsletter….

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll tell you something: your government

did so little in education, Madam, that they were afraid to put

out any newsletter on education. You had nothing put out.

Nothing.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We are very proud of the fact…

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have some discipline. Order!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: …that when we put out a newsletter it

will have something positive to say about education.

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Just out of interest, that particular

newsletter, which was quoted by the Member for Saanich and the

Islands, conceded that there were no funds to be provided for

supplementary grants in any form at all this year, which, of

course, is completely inaccurate. When I met with the teachers

and the trustees I pointed out to them that there would be

supplementary funds, as there always have been, even under the

former government to a certain degree, because within the

statutes of the Public Schools Act it allows for supplementary

funds or grants-in-aid when the school mill rate could cause an

unnecessary burden. That is what will happen again this

year.

In a time of high costs — which the Member for Saanich and

the Islands just ran through, his great concern about

inflationary rises in education particularly — I pointed out to

the school boards of the province that we all had to work

together in a time when costs were escalating. I think that is

simply something with which you yourself would have to agree,

Mr. Member. You just made the statement yourself that you were

concerned. Yet the interesting thing about the Member for

Saanich and the Islands, when he makes that statement, is his

solution. The only thing he can suggest is that we separate the

portfolio into two Ministers, one handling education programmes

and one handling finance. That was his great design for

handling the problem of educational finance in this

province.

MR. CURTIS: It's a suggestion.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, when you take on the whole area of

inflation and school finance, Mr. Member, we would expect you

to come out with something a little more concrete and specific

than that. The matter of education finance is under study in my

department now. We accept the fact that the present school

finance formula is not equitable in many areas and does need

revision. There is no question about that. We are in the

process of analyzing the whole present formula.

One statement made really did shock me. It was the

statement, I believe, from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), if I'm correct, who

[ Page 1297 ]

suggested that anyone who wants a higher salary is

disenchanted with his job. I suppose, then, Mr. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) must be demoralized with his job too because

he was perhaps just suggesting that there should be a

raise.

Really, I wonder if that's what the teachers of the province

have said to you as their rationale for wanting a higher

salary. I really question that, Mr. Member. If that is the

basis for everyone in our sector of society wanting more wages,

then everyone in this province is disenchanted with their

work.

When we talk about the whole matter of changes, it has been

suggested that nothing has happened in this department in the

last three years — nothing at all. I think what you should

really do is perhaps travel around the province and speak to

some of the school boards and the teachers of this province

directly and also the citizens so that you can run through with

them some of the major changes which have come about in this

province. When I visit with them, believe it or not, I receive

not the hostility which seems to be so apparent in quotes from

the press et cetera, but I have received, on the other hand,

some very excellent positive applause for the accomplishments

in the Department of Education.

As a matter of fact, even the former president of the B.C.

Teachers Federation….

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't think we need to talk to the press

about education when it comes to positive achievements. Their

job is to report. Period. But your job as a responsible Member…you should get out and find out just what is going on in

the classrooms.

Now, the former president (Mr. McFarland) of the B.C.

Teachers' Federation called for my resignation over an internal

firing, so-called — which was not actually a firing but a

termination of appointment within my department. That was the

reason for the call for my resignation. At the time I spoke to

the Teachers Federation I suggested that I think they would be

rather annoyed if I went publicly and demanded their

president's resignation over what they did internally with

their own personnel. Apparently that was received rather well

by the majority of the teachers. Even in his speech to the

convention he spent considerable time listing the areas of

accomplishment by this Department of Education since they came

into office.

Let's just take a few minutes and go through some of them.

As I said, I really don't have the time to go through them

all.

Pupil-teacher ratio. I found again rather interesting the way the two Members

who just spoke brushed off the facts and said: "The money isn't forthcoming."

As a matter of fact, one of them even made a statement that I have not provided

in the finances to provide for existing teachers to be continued on. That is

absolutely incorrect. When we go into details on the financing for this year's

budget for public schools, it has been made quite clear to the school boards

that they are in a financial position to keep on their existing staff. As a

matter of fact some school boards of this province will be able to continue

to reduce their pupil-teacher ratio.

Let me reiterate again: since we came into office it has

dropped by three. It is one of the lowest pupil-teacher ratios

in Canada. Here we have the Social Credit opposition saying

that they are concerned about inflation, and at the same time

one of their other Members is saying to me, "you must keep up

your commitments," which means putting another 2,200

teachers into the classroom if we continue at the same pace

this year. That doesn't just mean the salaries of those

teachers; it also means the classrooms and all the auxiliary

services. So you really must make up your mind. You can't make

one statement asking us to keep up that full commitment

immediately and then at the same time say: "We want you to be

responsible and keep costs down."

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't know what their position

is.

MRS. DAILLY: Transportation budget. I was shocked when I

came into office to find that a number of children,

particularly in the northern regions, had to stand in the cold

and wait for buses, but I was told that there was a rigid

formula placed by the former government and it couldn't be

changed. I asked to have that rigid formula changed and we put

over $1.5 million into updating transportation grants.

Kindergartens. In all the school districts of this province,

there are kindergartens. You never hear the opposition

mentioning that. They should be ashamed. Of course, I can

understand why they don't mention it. It is because the former

government did not feel strongly enough about the kindergarten

service to see that all children in this province could have

access to it.

Community schools. We hear the Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) saying that parents want to be involved. All right.

We have brought in legislation in the whole area of community

schools. That is not an answer in itself. Just building a

community school does not mean community involvement. But what

I have done is encouraged the school boards. I said to them

that any school board in the province today which expresses

concern about its power or its need to survive must involve

parents and must set up advisory committees to the school board

to ensure that as the years go along, even though they are

composed of elected officials and are accountable and must make

final decisions, the voice

[ Page 1298 ]

of the parent in the community has an opportunity to be

heard in the decisions which are made.

The teachers pensions are now one of the best in Canada

under this government.

Teacher training. I was interested to hear one of the

Members who spoke saying that nothing has happened in teacher

training and, since the strap was removed, what's happened.

First of all, we have set up a joint board on teacher

education, which has community representatives on it so that

the community for the first time — parents — can tell us what

they feel about teacher training.

They have already made some very valid suggestions. They

have asked that all teachers of this province should be trained

before they come out not only in the matter of class management

but also in the whole area of looking after a child with

learning disabilities.

This new board is doing an excellent job, and that's where

you get community involvement in teacher training.

There are going to be other changes in teacher-training

programmes coming. We have, as you know, initiated the first

internship programme in this province, which will be repeated

again this summer at the University of Victoria.

We have encouraged through funding the matter of in-service

training for teachers across the province.

In the matter of research and development it was questioned:

what happens to it now? Where are the research and the

innovative programmes going on? There are many going on, and we

have the funds, as you will see in the research and development

vote, so that we can encourage local….

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I hear somebody from the opposition

saying, "Ha!" Do you know that when we came into office you

were putting nothing, literally nothing, into research in this

province? Nothing! This money will be to encourage local

initiative in developing pilot programmes. The Member for Cariboo (Mr.

Fraser) is aware that we have started in his area the first

pilot project in Brûlé School so that we can bring children in

his area back to their own home area so they don't have to spend hours and hours in a

school bus. This is going to be financed, and has been

financed, through pilot projects, and we are hoping to spread

it across the province.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): How are you going to vote on that

one?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Strathcona environmental education programme: for

the first time the Department of Education funded an environmental workshop

to send teachers and students back to their own districts to participate in

environmental education programmes.

If you look at the budget, you will see a considerable

amount of money there for Indian education, which we believe

very strongly should be encouraged. Our department has set up

an Indian advisory committee to assist in the hiring of an

Indian director for education to fill the vacancy left by the

untimely death of George Wilson.

We have encouraged and have money in research and

development to assist Indians who wish to encourage the

teaching of their own native language, and we will be assisting

again in the development of textbooks for native Indians.

Learning disabilities: we have the Chud report, which made

some excellent recommendations which re now being acted upon.

We are going to be setting p a full board in this province to

assist in the whole area of children with learning

disabilities. Once again we are financing the Jericho workshop

in this area.

There are many exciting things going on in education in this

province, and they are being done through the initiative of the

communities themselves, individually, in the province through

the teachers and through the school boards. But we are ready,

within he Department of Education, to finance these requests

for innovative programmes. We are also ready to give

leadership. That is why you will find hat even though the

research and development

section at this time is not filled,

you will find that here is also considerable increase suggested

in that structuring sheet I have given you to increase our

professional staff. I would like to make it clear that when we

came into office we had far less professional people in the

Department of Education than the Province of Prince Edward

Island — professional people.

Most of the school boards of this province have more

administrative staff, professional administrative staff, than

the Department of Education. So when you are looking at those

figures on restructuring and hiring new personnel, our emphasis

there is on putting more professional people into the

Department of Education, teachers who can go out into the field

and assist the school boards and the teachers'

associations.

I find it very interesting when we are being attacked on

enlarging the Department of Education personnel, because if you

want to come in and follow me around for a couple of days in

the office, you would see that every day the demands on the

Department of Education are increasing. People are writing to

us, teachers' associations, colleges, school boards, parents,

wanting assistance and asking for leadership and help from this

department, asking us to send people out in the field to assist

them. That is why we are building up personnel in the

Department of Education: so that we can send more people out

into the field. This is an essential thing.

[ Page 1299 ]

One particular area that was brought up was the area of the

5 I steps. I agree. Again, I don't want to make the excuse of

saying that we inherited an antiquated structure, because we

have been in two years now. Even though we did inherit a very

rigid system and rigid control by the former government for

capital approval, we have a responsibility to change that.

One of our problems has been that I inherited about four or

five people in that whole area, when I came into office, who

were to handle all the capital approvals for the whole

province. I do not know how those people were able to function

at all before. So that is one area where we have finally gained

approval to increase staffing so that we can go out there and

speed up the approvals.

We are also going to move on the reduction of a number of

the steps which have been mentioned.

The whole area of the White Paper is interesting. You know,

when it first came in it was ridiculed as being such a minute

little piece of paper. The interesting thing is that ever since

that paper's been out, the opposition has been saying to me:

"When are you going to start acting on it?" Yet when they first

had it in their hands, they said there was nothing to this

paper. Now they are demanding action on it.

The other point is, and I want to make it quite clear: if

you read that paper again, it says, "directions for change." It

simply pointed out areas which should be analyzed and studied.

It was not a mandate for change.

Who really knows what way educational change should go? This

is the big problem, as I said earlier to you, which all

Ministers of Education face across Canada and elsewhere. How do

you decide what area of change is going to be for the benefit

of all students? Certainly we have set up a number of

commissions. I've tried various ways to do this. When you find

one way is not going to bring in to you the input you need,

then you must stop it and try to find a proper structure to

give you the right input.

There are many people out there in this province who are

ready to assist us in educational change. But I think we have

to be very careful when we talk about educational reform, as I

said to the British Columbia Teachers Federation recently,

because when you talk reform the whole point is going to end up

in: who is going to control public education finally? Who is

going to control it?

I think that's something that all responsible Members of the

opposition will give great thought to because we know there are

so many communities out there who say: "We want this road to be

taken into education," and others want you to take

another road. So a Minister of Education who has to take final

accountability for all change must ensure that no one elitist

group or any specific group is trying to dictate change.

Even in 1928, as you'll see quoted in my speech, Walter

Lippmann stated: "If I read the signs correctly, we are at the

beginning of intense struggle for the control of public

education." He said he saw too little like-mindedness between

teachers and their fellow citizens for the schools to carry on

their work with ease and openness. He said that it would

probably be a constant struggle for whom is going to control

education.

I said to the teachers that I agree, there will be a

struggle. But I'm not as pessimistic as Walter Lippmann because

I believe very strongly that if you operate on two basic

principles, I think that we can move in orderly, rational

educational change. One is: that system must be operationally

flexible enough to meet the very needs of those for whom it was

created. Secondly, that directions used to meet these needs

must be undertaken on a partnership basis involving all those

communities whose interests are directly affected. But we still

get down to the fact that the local school board and here at

this level, in the Legislature, and myself as Minister, are

accountable to the public. That is our great

responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are on your final two

minutes.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Therefore, I just want to emphasize that

when the opposition does talk about lack of change…I have

a tremendous amount of material in front of me. I've given each

of you a copy of my speech to the teachers' federation which

outlines some changes relative to teachers' status since we

came in. I have almost volumes on the changes which have taken

place, I just hope that the opposition would take time to do

some research on the very positive changes that have taken

place in the last three years.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I think we should

start off by saying that in estimates we zero in on the

administrative responsibility of the Minister. On that basis I

would have to say that in the light of recent events the

administrative capacity of the Minister has been brought, very

sadly, under question.

In the light of many events one can only be critical, and I

will at the same time try to be fair. But it is not adequate

for this Minister or any other Minister responsible to the

public to take some of the actions which have been taken

recently and try and shove it all under the rug as being a

matter of internal administration. Even if it were only that,

it is internal administration of the poorest kind. As members

of the public, and as elected representatives of the public, we

have every right to know a great deal more than we now know

about the incredible hiring and

[ Page 1300 ]

firing that has gone on in this department in the last two

and a half years.

A department that's spending $754 million in the coming

year, a very large

section of the budget…in that light and

in the light of these recent events, I think we're entitled to

ask a host of questions.

I personally am frequently accused of being not critical

enough in politics and not being prepared to attack mistakes as

I see them. That may or may not be a fair criticism, I don't

know. But on this particular estimate of this Minister, I think

I have every right to be extremely critical.

I'm sick and tired of hearing this government defend its own

actions in the light of the former government. When you're

trying to succeed after something that was a dead loss, it

shouldn't be very difficult to be pretty good. I would say that

in education this government is better than the last

government. But, after all, when you make comparisons, try and

compare yourself with something that was pretty reasonable to

start with and not with the kind of anemic, half-dead,

unimaginative policies we had before. The government of that

day just looked upon education as a financial pain in the neck.

So I just think it's about time we tried to debate the

performance of this government, and certainly this department,

on its own merits and not all these useless comparisons with a

government that, thank goodness, is gone.

The Minister has chosen repeatedly not to answer certain

questions through the media. That is her right of choice. But I

think I should make one thing very plain: I expect the Minister

to answer some pretty straight questions in this House.

I've heard a lot today about change. As my colleague on my

right hand muttered, there's nothing more constant than change.

We're living in a changing world. Surely if there's any system

that has to modify and alter and change, it's our educational

system. But whether the Minister likes it or not, what I hear

when I go around the province seems to be a little different

from what she's hearing.

The public feel somewhat betrayed by the educational

performance of the Department of Education. I don't blame

entirely the Minister. I think there are serious flaws within

her department. The feeling I often have told to me is that

dithering has been substituted for direction. Someone the other

day said to me: "The best three words to sum up this department

are 'dilly-dally Dailly."' And a series of hirings and firings

with little or no explanation by what is reputed in this House

to be an open government leaves the public and the taxpayers,

the pupils, the teachers and the trustees all wondering what is

going on in the Department of Education in Victoria. The

question is just that simple.

It's frequently stated to me that the Minister is on the defensive and that

there has been a lack of candour in explaining some of her recent actions which,

she has stated in public, she has taken on the advice of her Deputy. When the

Minister sat on this side of the House, she frequently made the commitment that

she would change the system. When she became the Minister, various measures

were set up, measures were taken, commissions set up to find out through research

what changes might be advisable. I don't want to go back through the whole business

of the five points and the White Paper. As the Minister mentioned, they've been

gone over many times.

What I do want to zero in on without any doubt at all,

however, are the two words "research and development."

Presumably, when you look at a system as complicated as the

educational system and consider that it might require change,

surely one has to try and determine two things. What is in

the system right now which is good and worth preserving and

what is in the system that quite clearly should be changed? As

far as any average individual looking from the sidelines would

conclude, that's what research should be doing in education, as

in any other field, whether it were medicine or highways or

agriculture or any other department.

In trying to find out by research what is needed and what

should be preserved, we've had the sorry succession of

failures. We've had Mr. Bremer; we've had Dr. Knight. And,

incredibly, not only these two leaders in research but

apparently every single other member of the research staff was

also considered somewhere along the line to either be

inadequate or incompetent or in some way unsuitable to continue

beyond the probationary period.

I don't think we should have a debate on the semantics of

whether somebody was fired or dismissed or that their probation

wasn't extended. What we're going to debate, I hope, is the

fact that we have the incredible situation in a period of two

years of a total of at least 10 highly competent professional

educators, employed by this government to take on a very

important task, and that somehow or other all 10 of them are

failures. It's very, very difficult for the average citizen to

understand.

It's been said — and the Minister may wish to expand on this — that, of course, in the case of Dr. Knight, he exceeded his

powers. The only public explanation which the Minister has

really given has said, or certainly implied, that Dr. Knight

wanted to run the department or implement policy, and, of

course, no one individual employed in this department could

have this kind of authority. I agree. It would be ridiculous if

one person somewhere in the Department of Education tried to

exert that kind of unilateral power.

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

[ Page 1301 ]

But under the Public Service Commission "Position Vacant,

" dated May 24, 1974, the duties of the position Dr.

Knight assumed are defined very clearly. I would just like to

read them into the record:

"…under general direction of the Deputy Minister, to be

responsible for the overall administration and direction of

major studies concerning all aspects of education within the

province, including educational finance programmes, authority

and responsibility, students' rights, administration and

organization; to maintain contact and liaison with and

participation by teachers, students, colleges, universities,

school boards, BCTF, BCSTA, research organizations and the

public; to work closely with departmental officials in

co-ordinating activities; to develop a close understanding of

all aspects of education within the province and formulate

broad, new, innovative approaches; to make recommendations with

respect to overall policy…."

I think maybe one should repeat that little phrase: "…formulate broad, new, innovative approaches and to make

recommendations with respect to overall policy…."

"…new legislation, restructuring and the

implementation of change…" — the implementation of change.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Implementation, my friend, not recommendation. "…implementation of change in a co-ordinated and systematic fashion."

So let's get the record straight, for a start: Dr. Knight

applied for that job on these terms; that was his job

description, I ask anyone with any kind of an objective and

fair mind at all to deny that he was given a very extensive,

wide definition of his terms of reference. That last phrase

says: "…the implementation of change in a co-ordinated

and systematic fashion." Let's get that point straight right

away. The impression has been generated in this public

controversy that he went far beyond the job he was asked to

do.

I would say this: if he did, the completely unfair way in

which he has been castigated in public without the Minister

giving some specific delineation of facts to back up her

statement about a public servant, I think, is anything but

reasonable and fair in the circumstances.

I might say in passing that I have a memo, which I won't take the trouble to

read, from the Deputy Minister of Education to all associate Deputy Ministers

and superintendents on June 10, 1974. If this kind of convoluted language with

big words and long sentences is typical of the way communication goes on within

the department, then God help our schools if this is the type of verbose, intricate

language to be used in trying to teach our kids communication.

It seems to me that if within the system we can't highlight

and give first priority to the importance of teaching

communicative skills, then, indeed, our system is in trouble.

This kind of very stiff and starchy language used in the memo

has to be read two or three times to really understand what the

purposes of research and development are going to be. The

public could come to the conclusion that the researchers

themselves weren't quite clear what on earth this was all about

and what they were supposed to be doing.

At any rate, at this particular time I don't think we can

overlook this very serious public concern about events within

the department. I don't accept that they can be sloughed off as

being so much an internal matter that we shouldn't be asking

questions about it. I would like to ask some questions.

Does the Minister consider that the original aims and

functions of the research and development project under Dr.

Knight were poorly defined, or does she consider that they were

quite adequately defined? Does the Minister — and equally

important, does her Deputy, through her — really feel that they

have a clear definition of what they were asking from research

and development? Perhaps the Minister, in answering, could give

us a specific outline of what they were seeking.

As I say, I don't want to take up the time of the House in

reading this memo that went to the superintendents and

Associate Deputy Ministers, but that kind of language makes it

difficult for a very ordinary person like me to read that and,

without a fair amount of re-reading, come to the conclusion as

to what the situation is outlining and what is being asked.

The third question I would like to ask the Minister is:

after starting the research and development project did the

Minister have any apprehension about what the research was

revealing? It's a great idea sometimes to go into research

hoping that you'll find out some things, but it gets a little

shocking when you find out some other things. As I've stated,

Mr. Chairman, the job description of Dr. Knight seemed to me to

be very extensive and it would be difficult to imagine how he

could go beyond his terms of reference.

I think the fourth question would be, in light of the

Minister's action towards Dr. Knight and the researchers: has

the government had a fundamental change of mind and heart with

regard to the extent and direction of change for the

educational system in British Columbia? The Minister today, as

at previous times, has quite correctly stated that change for

the sake of change is no answer at all, and as a good

conservative I couldn't agree more with that. The

[ Page 1302 ]

wisdom in education must surely He in preserving what is

good and stable and well established as a positive virtue, and

trying to find out the areas in which there should be change —

whether it be mainly decentralization or greater involvement of

all the groups and individuals concerned, or what. It can be

many different directions although, with respect, Mr. Chairman,

I don't think it solves very much to ask the questions without

at least suggesting what each of us feels is the answer.

I would also say that I become a little impatient with

people in the educational field using great big words. It then

comes back to the subject of communication and understanding.

We've talked about "collegiality." Now, how many people out of

a hundred people on the street know what in heaven's name

"collegiality" means? With respect to one of our eminent

columnists, I think the reason he's probably an eminent

columnist is that he has the tremendous facility to put in two

or three words what other people take a long time to explain.

And he says that means "letting the troops have a say."

Collegiality! This is the kind of example within the Department

of Education of the language and the long, convoluted, stilted

sentences and so on. It just lacks the first prerequisite of

any educational component: the facility to communicate and be

understood. The department itself is doing an abysmal job of

just that. That to me is priority No. 1. If in the classroom

the teacher isn't communicating with the pupil and being

understood and vice versa, then again I say no wonder our

educational system is falling far short of its potential.

Question 5: has the Minister found that the reforms being

proposed as a result of this in-depth study by the researchers

are too radical and unacceptable to the government? This is

another reason why, with respect, I suggest that the Minister

just can't slough this off as an internal, departmental

employer-employee situation. That is, again, one of the vital

concerns that people have in the province as you talk to them:

possibly change of some stable, sound, well-considered nature

is required, but do we require radical change? Was one of the

reasons that the Minister and the Deputy couldn't hit it off

with the researchers the fact that their proposals were much

too radical for the policies intended by this government? I

think the Minister has to tell us that. I just do not think

that the people of this province can be satisfied by being told

that this is just a simple internal matter and that we've no

business to ask the kind of questions I'm asking right now.

The Minister also this afternoon, earlier on, made a very

valid retort to a criticism: "Don't just give me sweeping

generalizations; give me facts." I'll give you some facts about

the loss of public confidence that I'm talking about.

We have a weekly question that's asked and published in The Victorian newspaper.

It's a different subject every week. Usually there's a split in the opinion

of the people who are interviewed. But in The Victorian newspaper of January

22: "Today's question: Eileen Dailly has been the centre of controversy of late.

Are you satisfied with her as the Minister of Education?"

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Now, doesn't that just show how the government

is out of keeping and out of tune with the times? Of the six

people interviewed, every single one of them felt that the Hon.

Minister was a failure in her job. I think the people over

there, Mr. Chairman, are a little biased.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll put them on the streets pretty quick.

They'll be on the streets.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): How many people were

interviewed?

MR. WALLACE: Six.

HON. MR. LEA: How do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: He saw it in the paper.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: That's a slanderous statement against the

press, Mr. Minister. You are suggesting that they are slanting

the news. Is that what you are suggesting?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, dear me, that's how your injection sounded

to me, that perhaps you were casting some doubt about the

honesty and integrity of the press.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No!

MR. WALLACE: I would like to Minister at least to answer

some of these questions. They are very straightforward and

there should be no difficulty answering them.

I think the other question of discussing the administrative

ability of the Minister…surely we have to look at the

method by which the employment was terminated.

This is a government that strongly espouses balance between

employer and employee and the protection of the employee's

individual rights. I see the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

nodding his head furiously, and I knew he would. Well, let's

say

[ Page 1303 ]

that the Minister of Labour is obviously in agreement with

my statement that this government is immensely concerned about

individuals' rights in the employment field.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the only way we can tell he is

awake.

MR. WALLACE: I just say that regardless of the justification

for Dr. Knight's termination or the lack of justification, as

the case may be, the method by which his job was terminated

seems to me to have been incredibly clumsy and to be unfair and

certainly unnecessary by a government such as this one which

makes such strenuous assertions as to its respect for

individual rights.

Maybe the Minister would like to deny the assertions that

I'm about to make — that he was given four hours to clean up

his desk and get out. He was given no reason for his dismissal

and was told that he could not have the privilege of resigning.

I hope the Deputy Minister is really listening because I don't

like to waste my time repeating questions.

He was given four hours to clean his desk and get out. He

was given no reason for his dismissal and he was told he didn't

have the privilege of resigning. Would that not occur to you,

Mr. Chairman, to be rather a strange attitude for an open

government that claims to respect the rights and the dignity of

the individual?

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

tells me that in this department of research and development it

is an open-door government — they open the door and out you go,

with no reason given and none of the normal courtesies that

accompany dismissal.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to answer

or the Deputy Minister to tell the Minister: was it a fact that

Dr. Knight was dismissed one day after he had been asked to

develop a strategy for a conference between Washington and

British Columbia? It is a fact that four days previous to his

dismissal he had been asked to attend a conference in September

as a departmental representative?

I have come to the conclusion that if this kind of thing was

happening within the department, (1) there can't be much

confidence among the department staff, and (2) his dismissal

was perhaps much more abrupt than we have all been led to

believe.

If it wasn't abrupt, I think it is base cynicism one would

have to have that a man who is about to be dismissed two or

three days later is being led up the garden path into believing

that his work is satisfactory, that he is an acceptable member

of the staff, that in fact he is being given departmental

responsibility for conferences in different parts of the

country.

I think that is a shameful situation, if at the time it was known within the

department that Dr. Knight was unacceptable and was to be dismissed, that within

two or three days of his dismissal he is being led up the garden path into assuming

that he is being given continuing responsibility. I want that question answered,

too.

Of course, if we have to talk about the final indignity to a

person being dismissed, we find that eight days after his

dismissal, he gets a letter from the Public Service Commission

telling him that he has been appointed to an advisory

position.

I just have to ask in the light of all these established

facts — unless the Minister can prove otherwise — is it any

wonder that the man in the street (and I didn't quote some of

the responses from the man in the street) feels that the

department is in a considerable degree of internal chaos and

that we have, in the course of two years, 10 highly-qualified

educators all being dismissed for minimal or no reason that the

Minister chooses to state publicly?

The next question I'd like to ask the Minister is a very

serious one. It relates to a statement made by Dr. Knight in

his letter to the Premier outlining the rather strange

appointment by the Public Service Commission after his

dismissal.

The point I want to zero in on — and again I hope the

Minister is listening to this specific point — because Dr.

Knight says: "Funds which were approved by the Treasury Board

for specific project work related to the White Paper were

rechanneled by the Deputy Minister to cover deficits in other

departmental areas."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member for Oak Bay

that the green light is on.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be back.

Dr. Knight goes on to say: "Consequently, my division

received neither approval of the Minister nor funds from the

department to carry out the work as promised by the Minister to

both the people of the province and the cabinet."

I'll end on that very serious note. Not only should we get

more information about how the administrative work of the

department is carried on in relation to normal rules that apply

between employer and employee, but that last note — which is

all I have time to ask right now — is that Dr. Knight even

suggests that funds were rechanneled and used to cover

deficits in other areas of the department. I hope the Minister

might be kind enough to answer some of these very specific

questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps before the Minister responds to

some of the statements made and questions raised so far

regarding the group of

[ Page 1304 ]

people who were in the research and development division, I

might add a comment or two on this specific area.

This question was first raised by me in the Legislature when

I questioned the Minister. When I first raised it, after a

certain amount of equivocation she said that she had ended the

practice because she could not tolerate the system which denied

natural justice. She was right to do so, but it seems strange,

however, in reference to this adherence to the fine principles

of natural justice, that the members of the department's

research and development division have not been allowed to

benefit by those same noble sentiments.

In the B.C. public service — and I regret the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is not here because he can perhaps

shed some light on this matter; I think he is involved

somewhere — the probationer who is put on six-month terms

normally is given a written assessment at the end of the first

three months. If that written assessment of their work is

satisfactory, at the end of the next three months — in other

words at the end of the six-month probationary period — it is

re-examined and they are then confirmed in their

appointment.

If questions are raised about their competence, they are

given a second report in a three-month period in which to

demonstrate they can rectify the lack of performance in their

probationary period.

That's what probation is all about, and probation has been

shamefully misused in the present case we are talking of.

The treatment given Dr. Stanley Knight and his colleagues is

far from this. I would like to know from the Minister if they

were ever told at any time during their probationary period

that their work was unsatisfactory. At the end of three months,

did they get that report on the satisfactory or unsatisfactory

nature of their work to date? It appears to me that all the

indications are that the opposite was the case. They were not

given any report at that time that their work was

unsatisfactory, but they were fired unceremoniously. They were

given no opportunity of following the grievance procedure laid

out in the new Public Service Act, which the Members of the

government boasted about when it came in, and they weren't able

to follow that because the government cabinet Ministers had

thwarted the wishes of this Legislature by failing to appoint

members to the grievance board.

I don't think those are principles of natural justice. I

just don't think that is in keeping with the Minister's

statement when she replied to my question.

It seems to me that in the handling of this the Provincial Secretary has tried

very hard to embarrass the Minister of Education, because it appears to me that

the mishandling of Dr. Knight and his colleagues was something designed to embarrass

her and leave some credence to the rumour going around that the Provincial Secretary

is after the Minister's job.

I would like to ask a few more questions about harassment to

which the members of the research and development

section were

subjected prior to their dismissal.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

says that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk)

is after his job. When you were away he took it over, Mr.

Minister. He had a great time. But back to Education. Despite

the concern of the Attorney-General about the Minister of

Economic Development and his efforts to take over the A-G's

department Education.

On March 10, Hansard , page 493, I asked the Minister

whether she had ordered or conducted an inquiry into the

allegations of harassment by employees of the department who

formerly served in the research and development division.

The Minister replied that she was satisfied: "There was no

such harassment." Well, I don't know what she really means by

harassment. One of the members of this particular group was on

her way to a meeting in the Queen Charlotte Islands at that

time, on February 26. She had travelled to Vancouver and was

about to board a flight to the north, to the islands, when a

telephone call was received ordering her to return to Victoria.

As there was some confusion, she carried on with her flight,

but she got to the other end and orders were again given that

when she arrived in the islands she was to return home at once.

She did.

She felt somewhat distraught. She wasn't too well the next

day and she went to see her doctor and booked off sick. That

was the day her colleagues were fired, and that night her

dismissal notice was delivered to her by a deputy sheriff —

shades of the wild west. They don't give them the opportunity

of having the three-month probationers report. Then when they

fire people, it's done by way of deputy sheriffs serving

papers.

Well, that appears to me to be rather a strange example of

natural justice and a rather curious example of lack of

harassment. It appears to me that that is harassment.

So I would like to leave the Minister with a few specific

questions. Was the performance of the research and development

officers properly evaluated on the Public Service Commission

forms? Are there any forms, any written records, of evaluation

of those men and women? If they were evaluated in accordance

with the public service practices, were they told at any time

prior to their dismissal that their work was not satisfactory?

Have any of them

[ Page 1305 ]

brought a complaint before the Public Service Commission

alleging harassment in that department?

We feel that somehow or another the Minister seems to have

got herself into a jam on this particular issue. I don't quite

understand how. I don't know whether she hired these people

originally, whether she put them in her department, whether she

woke up after six months to discover that they were

unfortunately right in the department doing the very thing that

they'd been hired to do — namely, to ask questions and bring in

reform — and that these questions and this reform were highly

distasteful to the other Members of the department and

therefore they were all slung out on the Minister's

decision.

I would like to know — I don't know if the story will ever

be told — about the involvement of the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) in this. Why is it that the Provincial

Secretary did not speak up on behalf of having these people

treated like other civil servants are treated with respect to

reports on competence and with respect to their probationary

period?

As I mentioned, the normal practice, if there is an adverse

report at the end of the six months, is to give that person

three or four months to shape up. Failing that improvement,

they are them dismissed — released, I should say. Fair enough,

that's the standard practice. Why was it varied in this

instance? At any time were they told that their performance was

unsatisfactory, and was this put on the proper Public Service

Commission board? That's the proper procedure. The procedures

appear to have been ignored, and natural justice certainly

appears to have been denied. I say this regardless of the

political views, radicalism, conservatism or otherwise, of the

people involved. Surely, as individuals in the civil service,

they should be entitled to the protection of the normal rules

and regulations and the normal approach.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to bring to the attention of

the last two speakers that they do know that Dr. Knight and

some of the other members of the research and development

division — in fact, all five of them on one particular issue —

are going to grievance. Now you have to make up your mind

whether you believe in the grievance procedure taking place…. Or are you wanting us to have a grievance procedure debate

right here in the House without the other people present…?

MR. WALLACE: They've got that choice.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, they have not, Mr. Member. If you

would follow the papers, you would understand that they are

going to grievance. Now do you think that we should open up

this whole grievance procedure here on the floor of this

House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think it's unfair to those who are not

even here. You are making statements which obviously have been

given to you. You are in opposition and I can understand why

you are using them. But surely the fair thing would be to wait

until these people have their hearing before the public service

grievance board. Then the people who have the grievance will be

heard, all their arguments will be presented by those

individuals and the department will present its arguments. You

will all be made aware of the results. Now I think it is most

unfair to want to go into this right here on the floor of this

House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister comes up and talks about

grievance. I remember when my colleague from Vancouver–Point

Grey first questioned the appointment of Dr. Bremer. He was

accused by this Minister because he simply asked how he was

appointed. He was accused of great disservice to education in

British Columbia. She constantly likes avoiding questions and

attacking in this way when the questions are not to her

liking.

Well, the fact of the matter is that there is a grievance

procedure; but also in our estimates — and we are under

estimates at the present time — we have thousands upon

thousands of dollars put down there for research and

development. Madam Minister, have I asked you about it? I've

asked you three specific questions. I asked you whether or not

these people, after three months, were given an evaluation on

the proper Public Service Commission forms.

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

That is a fact — whether they had it or not — a straight

fact which the revelation of in this House will not in one way

or another affect their grievance before the board. The

Minister is just copping out when she says: "Oh, there's a

grievance going on. I can't tell you whether there was a

report." It should be a public document at this stage, a report

on their competence or otherwise after three months. She can't

tell us if there was a report at the end of six months.

These are factual requests. It's not a request for opinion;

it's a request for these reports. The Minister knows full well

she's deliberately refusing to answer material which in no way

affects the grievances of these people, and she's doing that at

the present time by refusing to speak up. If she answers these

questions it will not jeopardize the grievance procedure; it

will simply inform the Members of this House something about

the estimates and the money being put down here in the

estimates for research and development at the present time —

all these positions, of course, being unfilled.

[ Page 1306 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It is my opinion that to answer those will

jeopardize the grievance, and I do not intend to carry on any

more in answering them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …to the Minister, is a factual matter.

Is she going to have it go to the grievance committee and then

not let them know what she did? This is a fact which must come

out. Whether it comes out here or there will not make one whit

of difference to the grievance procedure, because it's the

content which will determine whether their grievance is

justified or not. The existence of such documents presented at

this time, or information on their existence at this time,

would not affect their grievance procedure. She's just refusing

to carry out her responsibilities to this committee by refusing

to answer questions of this nature.

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

have before us a motion to reduce the salary of the Minister of

Education by a dollar.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You weren't in, Mr. Premier. Oh yes, the Member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) moved it; it was seconded by the

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis).

HON. MR. BARRETT: That defeats it right there — those

two.

MR. McGEER: We don't know the outcome, but I find it pretty

easy, Mr. Chairman, just on general principles to support

motions to reduce the salaries of people on those Treasury

benches by a dollar. One doesn't have to search one's

conscience very hard to reach a decision of that kind.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Where would you find a

conscience, Pat?

MR. McGEER: We've had a lot of discussion about change, and

I must say that I'm reminded of that old expression that the

Premier knows so well: "Plus ça change, plus ça reste la même

chose."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your pronunciation is pretty bad.

MR. McGEER: I thought it was kind of good, Mr. Chairman. I'm

not like Premier Lougheed — I'm not taking lessons in French as

a non-candidate on the national scene. I'm just happy to rest

on my high school French. The Premier knows that the high

school French education in British Columbia is excellent. He

was prepared to autograph the copy of the budget to the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) "Bonne chance!" He should

have autographed a copy like that to the mayors of the cities

and municipalities of British Columbia, though I don't think

they have a bonne chance from that budget.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Trudeau doesn't want either you

or the Premier.

MR. McGEER: The Premier had a good delegation down there —

secretaries, press representatives, even opposition MLAs. I was

one of them, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) for my trip down there…oh, the government

too but it was only when the Member for Oak Bay found that he

didn't have the funds to go that there was this instant change

of policy. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was in

shape, supported by people who aren't friends, but

acquaintances of the government. (Laughter.) I tell you, Mr.

Chairman, the Members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative

Party can't even form an acquaintanceship with their

secretaries, so we were very grateful for the opportunity to

hear what the Premier had to say.

But the people who had a lot at stake — the mayors of the

cities and municipalities — weren't invited. There wasn't a

word said about them. We were talking about who has a bonne

chance in British Columbia, and I don't think that it's the

mayors of the cities and municipalities, when it comes to a

budgetary…. But we'll have a chance to discuss that more

under the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk)…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we return to the question

under debate?

MR. McGEER: …the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

and some of the bills that are before us.

Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the reason for supporting the

motion to reduce the Minister's salary by a dollar can't be the

budget of the Department of Education. This year it's up by

almost 50 per cent. Now I'm not attacking that. It's certainly

more than the MPs increase, and we know that's the benchmark by

which we go.

So the budget of the Department of Education is adequate. At $750 million, that budget for education exceeds what was the

total provincial budget only six or seven years ago.

The question now is not whether we have adequate funds in

the Treasury of British Columbia for adequacy in educating our

young people. The question is whether we are getting value for

those dollars spent. I don't believe we're beginning to get the

value for our educational dollar that we were getting only two

or three years ago. We are spending

[ Page 1307 ]

more and getting less.

Just this spring the schools in the City of Victoria, second

largest city in the province, for the second time in two years

were crippled by a strike. The Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) suggested that the parents of

those children affected by the strike, and the property owners,

had a case against the government as obligatory taxpayers for a

system which is obliged to function and produce value for those

tax dollars. Yet when it's crippled by strikes, that value is

not being provided.

In the City of Vancouver this year there was a three-week

strike which affected 17 out of 18 secondary schools and 20 out

of 75 elementary schools.

In January to February, 1973, the Princeton school district

was out. That year there was a 21-day closure in the

Okanagan.

In the Kootenays — the East and West Kootenays — there was a

four-week strike in 1974. There was a strike in the schools in

January, 1975, in Nanaimo. A two-week strike in 1974 in

Abbotsford. In February, 1974, there was a two-week rotational

strike in the City of Vancouver.

In the past two years there have been something like 15

strikes against our school system, all brought about by

maintenance workers of one kind or another, We've always believed that there should not be strikes in

essential public services. These strikes should be settled by

arbitration. At one time the idea of a strike in our school

system, with the potential damage that it might do to the

education of our students, was taken so seriously that for

relatively trivial reasons people would not indulge in that

kind of action against society. Attitudes have changed to the

point where we will look forward to an increasing number of

strikes in our school system in future years, no matter how

much money is available, unless corrective action is taken.

When I was visiting Japan two years ago, one union involving

the school system went on strike in one small area of Japan.

The censure for that action by the people of Japan was almost

unbelievable because they take the preparation of their

youngsters very, very seriously in that country. They regard a

closure of the educational system as a crime against society.

That may be an extreme point of view for a much more permissive

society such as our own, but I do think that we are going to

have to take a very different attitude in the future than we

have in the past toward closure of the school system.

I advocate compulsory arbitration to settle disputes in the school system because

I think the education of our youngsters is important. It's clear from the budget

that the government is prepared to provide the money to do the job well but

the attitudes that have developed in connection with this increasing budget

mean that neither the taxpayers nor the children are going to get the benefits

they should from this adequacy of funding.

I think, too, that it should be noted that just this year

for the first time there is a suggestion of these strikes

spreading to our universities. Only today there was a note in

the paper about a fear of disruption of examinations by workers

at Simon Fraser University. Only shortly before that there was

a similar threat to students at the University of British

Columbia.

There is no way that you can pass students and give them

their year if they are unable to write their examinations, or

if for some reason the examinations are written at an

inopportune time when they aren't prepared and they fail them

when otherwise they might pass. Those students lose a full year

of work as a result of that kind of action. I think it's too

serious to be indulged in by this Legislature, and the time is

now to begin taking appropriate action on behalf of the general

public and our future generations.

Mr. Chairman, quite a lot was said this afternoon about

research and educational change. As far as I can tell, it's all

jargon speak. I haven't heard of a single important, original

idea with respect to education coming out of that department

since the Minister took over.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, shame!

MR. McGEER: Well, the Minister took her full allotment of

time to give us ideas this afternoon. I must say it's the first

time I've ever heard a Minister read a prepared text in

response to a non-confidence motion that has just been

presented on the floor.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I did

not read a prepared text. I referred in my reply to a statement

from a prepared text.

MR. McGEER: What the Minister is saying, Mr. Chairman, is

that she was prepared for the non-confidence motion. I wouldn't

have been surprised either. I would have brought in as much

material as I could to read to the House if I had as little

actual substance to go on.

I don't want my remarks to be misinterpreted, but I'm not

sure that what we really need in research and development in

education is a trampling once more of the ground that has been

gone over so many times by people in the educational system

itself. I believe, if we're going to have fresh air in this

whole matter of revising the preparation of our youngsters for

a modern society and a world of work, if our research and

development shouldn't be conducted by people who are actually

in the world of work.

The Minister has said so many times in this House that we

must not have failures among our students in the educational

system. The approach to having no

[ Page 1308 ]

failures, unfortunately, is to avoid the consequences of

teaching dull material, irrelevant material, in a context of

lack of discipline. You don't fail them, but they don't learn.

I do agree, Mr. Chairman, that every youngster who goes through

that system must be a success. But I see success in a different

context. I see it as accomplishing one of two things: the

preparation of that youngster for further education to a

definite career, or to have that career education provided in

the school itself so the youngster leaves prepared for a