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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

1843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

On the amendment to

vote 38.

Mrs. Jordan — 1843

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1846

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1846

Mrs. Jordan — 1848

Mr. Schroeder — 1848

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1849

Mr. Gibson — 1850

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1852

Mr. Phillips — 1853

Mr. McGeer — 1857

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1859

Mrs. Webster — 1859

Mr. McClelland — 1861

Mr. Lewis — 1863

Mr. McClelland — 1867

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

On the amendment.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Before the dinner hour,

Mr. Chairman, we found ourselves in the position of debating

the motion of non-confidence in the Minister. A number of

speakers had spoken on the reason for such a motion, some with

considerable regret. For my part, I was starting to point out

how one of the most serious criticisms of the Minister was her

inability to understand and her unwillingness to listen.

On this subject, when it has been brought up before, the

Minister has repeatedly said that it is the public who simply

do not understand. People are deeply concerned about her

turning a deaf ear to the general concern of the public and the

teachers. Her response to this, rather than offering leadership

to the department and responding to some of the concerns that

don't need much to implement, and her response to the turning

of a deaf ear, is to suggest that her department is going to

put out a publication so that the public will understand. She

says the reason is because there has been so much criticism of

her administration and so much criticism of the programmes that

she has not introduced but has had under discussion and under

analysis and under analysis of the analysis. She says that the

public simply don't understand, teachers simply don't

understand, parents simply don't understand and students simply

don't understand. In short, what this Minister is saying by

turning a deaf ear is that everyone is out of step but our

Eileen Dailly.

If the Minister would listen, and if she would act on some of the good advice

she has had, there would be no need for this type of sheet, which either is

going to be an apology for the Minister paid for by taxpayers' money or else

yet another propaganda sheet. That seems to be the only manner in which this

government feels it can impose its views which are not popular with the public.

If the Minister does this, she is once again — as we have seen in department

after department where these propaganda sheets have been introduced at the taxpayers'

expense, sometimes more than one to a department — showing that she doesn't

understand.

In this instance, she doesn't understand the role of these

civil servants. Once again we will see professional civil

servants being placed in the position where they must be

responsible for the publication and printing of propaganda on a

partisan basis. In doing this and in showing that she doesn't

understand, the Minister imposes upon the pride and the

responsibility of the civil servants. She simply doesn't seem

to understand that the professional civil servants have always,

should now and, to my knowledge, wish in the future to operate

on a non-partisan, non-political basis. They are career people

dedicated to their jobs, trained for their jobs. By the

Minister imposing her views which, if they follow the other

department's, will be on a partisan nature, she is inflicting a

role on the civil servants which they are not prepared to take

in light of their concern for their professional standing, but

which they must take in light of their concern for their jobs

and taking care of their families.

Once again we see another example of this Minister's

inability and unwillingness to listen and her inability to

understand.

The Minister has been looking very scornful when I mention

parents who feel this concern. It might be of interest for her

to know that on the day when the parents came to the

Legislature, many of that group expressed this concern.

I'd like to cite another example, a specific example on this

which has been brought to my attention as to where the

Minister's own views are being imposed upon parents in this

province, and teachers and, in the long range, students. That

is in the whole area of family life education in the schools.

What the Minister doesn't seem to grasp is that parents

themselves are not opposed to expanding programmes in the

schools. They are concerned in this instance where the Minister

has not been able to come to grips with fundamental problems in

education, has not been able to make decisions in the

fundamental areas of education but is imposing a philosophical

view on the educational system in British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It's not true.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for Shuswap says it's not true. If

he were in his own constituency, he would know that 800 parents

in the constituency of Shuswap attended a meeting because of

their concern for much of the content in this programme. At the

end of that meeting, when the parents went to the Minister of

Education...pardon me, on another occasion they went to the

Minister of Education when she has failed to convince them of

the value of this total programme in the schools.

[ Page 1844 ]

MR. LEWIS: Did you read the guideline?

MRS. JORDAN: They appealed to her and said: "What can we do

as parents if we do not approve of this programme being taught

in our school district?" Mr. Chairman, the answer of the

Minister to those parents was: "Then I'll have to send someone

up from the department to educate you." Now that is a reason

why....

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I think I can just take so much of this.

That is a complete lie — the statement which the Member just

made. I wish her to withdraw it. At no time did I ever make any

such statement re parents.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll accept the statement of

the Hon. Minister correcting the matter. I would ask the Hon.

Member to proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you. The parents there are aware of the

statements made by the Minister. But what concerns them in this

whole area....

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister of empty

office space!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan to accept without question that statement of the

Hon. Minister of Education. This is normal parliamentary

procedure.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to transgress on

parliamentary procedure but it is a matter of a parent's word,

with witnesses, against this Minister's word. If the Minister

wishes me to withdraw, then let her prove she didn't say

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not asking the Hon. Member

to withdraw; I am merely cautioning her that she should accept

the word of the Hon. Minister on this matter.

MRS. JORDAN: All right, Mr. Chairman. I'll accept the word

of the Minister for the record, but I wish to go on more with

the concern of the parents in this programme.

One of the points that they are concerned about is that introduction of sexual

relationships and references to sex begin at too early a stage in the school

curriculum and the kindergarten, which is not a teaching situation in the sense

of the word that the classroom is, but is accepted and thought to be a situation

in which young, people learn to socialize and learn to express themselves. The

parents feel that the introduction of some of the suggested illustrations and

the use of teachable moments as advocated by the department is an intrusion

upon their rights as parents as to what their children should be taught in kindergarten

and an intrusion on their rights as parents as to what, in fact, their children

should learn in terms of moral values and family relationships.

These children are generally of the age of five. Surely the

Minister can respect the right of the parents to exercise their

responsibilities and their authority in terms of what their

children should learn in this arena.

They also are concerned with the curriculum itself and to

whose values it refers. They feel that in many areas of the

curriculum, particularly in the lower grades, the state, in the

form of the Department of Education under the direction of this

Minister, is again coming between the values of the family —

their philosophical and religious approach to life and their

moral concepts — and the child.

The Department of Education suggested that this programme

should not be compulsory. Yet we have the reaction of the

Minister in Salmon Arm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What reaction?

MRS. JORDAN: We also examine the curriculum itself and the

direction to the teachers and the school boards, and that is

that they should utilize teachable moments throughout the day

for the introduction of various aspects of this programme. The

parents feel that if you utilize teachable moments at random,

then this, in effect, diminishes the right of choice — it

deletes the right of choice.

If the Minister wishes to introduce a family life programme

into the schools, then why not do it on an optional basis, as

these parents wish? There are some parents who wish it and some

who don't. I suggest to you, Madam Minister, that the parents

who don't have as much right to exercise their wishes as those

who do. I'd like to read the Minister some of their concerns,

and this is in relation to one school district. They say: "We

are told by the elementary education supervisor that the

elementary programme was not voluntary, and we as parents have

no choice but to have our children take it."

Now there's a statement that is in direct conflict to what

the Minister said tonight. Yet this is in the same area where

the Minister suggests I'm not conveying the impression of these

parents correctly. They go on to suggest that "the course

content is an invasion of the privacy and moral conscience of

the family unit and the sanctity of marriage, regardless of

[ Page 1845 ]

what the proposed aims of the course may be."

These are their views, Madam Minister, but they are views

that surely warrant consideration. They are concerned about the

use of sensitivity in this course, a highly specialized science

and art, really. Many adults I've talked to who have taken this

type of programme through church groups and educational groups

have come home with severe reservations in relation to

themselves and their own ability to cope, and most certainly

have severe reservations about their children being exposed to

this type of programme, particularly when it is in the hands,

largely, of people who are not trained.

There is question on the part of many parents as to

whether or not there are that many teachers in the school

system who are competent to teach the curriculum as it is

outlined. They are trained to teach specific courses, whether

they're athletics or math or science or art, but are they

trained to teach this? Just because one is a teacher or a

doctor or a minister, it does not necessarily mean that he is

an authority on all fields. It's suggested, and I think it's

proven, that those in professional occupations, as well as

those in any other walk of life, are subject to the same family

problems and marital stresses as anyone else. One's degree of

general education cannot indicate one's competency to take upon

oneself the responsibility that is put on the teacher in this

programme.

They are concerned that the values of the teachers

themselves will be introduced into the child's thinking, not in

a general sense but by their own lifestyle. Quite obviously how

one's lifestyle is to oneself is how one is going to reflect

your thinking when you're talking about family relationships.

When you're talking about the value of the family in society,

the parents question whether a teacher who is single and

enjoying the luxuries of a modern life is in a position to

present an unbiased point of view to their children as to what

makes up the ideal family unit.

These are some of the concerns, Madam Minister. I'd like to

refer to one of the reference books they're concerned about. It

was mentioned by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his

estimates as being an example of a fine, fine manual for the

education of children. It's called "Rhythm and Blues" and it's

printed, I understand with the help of a provincial government

grant, by a number of young people in Vancouver. I stand to be

corrected if this is not so.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: There is much in this of interest and, I think,

much of merit, but one point I'd like to bring forth in this

particular debate that the parents object to is under the

subject of birth control. It outlines the various means of

birth control including, under permanent methods, sterilization

and abortion.

Then it goes on to future methods.

The objection there, Madam Minister, is that the

presentation by this booklet would appear to condone abortion

as a means of birth control. Now this may not be the intention

of the Minister, and this is where her ability to listen and

her ability to offer leadership can come into play. It's just

one example, but it's a very real example and it's a matter of

very serious concern to many parents and many young people in

this province.

This booklet "Rhythm and Blues" is, in essence, by

inference, leading young people to believe that abortion is an

acceptable form of birth control. That, Madam Minister, is

something that the parents of this province, to a large degree,

say is not the prerogative of the Education department.

So without going into a lot more details, and analyzing the

course in full — and I will be prepared to make more statements

on it further on in the Minister's estimates — I would urge her

first of all to make it very clear to every school district and

to every parent in this province that this is an optional

programme, and to back that clear statement up by the

leadership which is required to make sure that if parents do

not wish their children to take

part in this programme in the

schools, then they have the right for those children to not

attend those classes, and that if those children do not attend

those classes, they won't in any way be jeopardizing their

opportunity to learn the more basic programmes in the other

parts of the curriculum.

I'm not in any way, Madam Minister, suggesting that those

parents who wish their children to take this programme be

denied that right. But I do suggest, in being Minister and in

having to assume a position of responsibility and leadership —

you introduced this programme — that it has met with

considerable concern on the part of parents both as to content,

extent of content and the age leanings of the various portions

of the curriculum. It is your responsibility to see that state,

under your direction and through the Department of Education,

does not come between the parent, their moral and social

values, and the child. It is also the responsibility of the

Minister to see that if this course is taught in the schools,

it is taught by teachers who have had the opportunity to fully

understand the programme and to be properly trained in the

various aspects of the programme.

I further suggest that it is the right of the parent to make

known at the local level, in their local schools — and to be

heard — their objections to certain reference books that are

being used and are recommended in the course. These reasons and

these objections should not only be acknowledged but should be

taken into consideration.

I hope the Minister will stand up tonight and make clear her

position on this programme. As I mentioned

[ Page 1846 ]

before, I hope she will assure the parents of this province,

who feel that this programme, as it is currently outlined, is

to a large degree an intrusion in their responsibilities and

their rights, that they should have the freedom of choice.

The Minister knows that there are two families at Salmon Arm

who have taken their children out of the school, and the

Department of Education was kind enough to suggest that they

wouldn't be prosecuted. But I suggest to the Minister that this

is a public school system, and those parents and those children

have the right to attend the school without having this type of

imposition imposed upon them.

I bring this up under the motion of non-confidence on the

Minister's salary because to date she has refused to listen and

she had refused to show the leadership necessary on a very

difficult subject.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this has been, as usual, a

most interesting speech from the Hon. Member, full of the usual

inconsistencies, misinformation and innuendo.

First of all, let's deal with her opening remarks when she

starts off on the tack that this Minister and this department

is giving no direction and no leadership. At the same time, her

leader (Mr. Bennett) is running around the province, almost at

every public meeting pointing out that the Department of

Education is too heavy-handed and, is becoming centralized. Now

I don't know who speaks for the party. I don't think anyone

does. I don't think anyone in that party, in particular the

Member who has just spoken and especially the Leader, have any

understanding at all of what's going on in education in this

province. You can't have it both ways. Your leader says: "We

want local autonomy, local control." On the other hand, he says

it's too heavily centralized. Then another Member gets up from

the party and says: "We want more central control and

leadership."

Now when we get down to the family life programme — the very

point which you are making and your concern — I accept the fact

that when you introduce a family life programme it is a

sensitive area. I made it very clear from the very beginning in

a number of circulars and letters which were sent to every

school board of this province, and in which we simply said that

we endorse and we believe that schools should have a family

life programme.

On the other hand, I said to them that we were only giving a

very loose, general guide on that programme. It is up to the

local school board to develop their programme, but only if they

first consult with the parents of the district. That has been

made very, very clear.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind them of standing

order 40(3), that they not interrupt the person who is

speaking. Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The very things which you're asking on

behalf of the parents have already been done. The school boards

of this province know that as Minister I don't condone a family

life education programme which has not been brought about

without prior consultation with the parents.

Secondly, they all know very clearly that they can opt out

of the programme.

I am concerned that some of the school districts in this

province, unfortunately — I'll be frank with you — have not

involved the parents to the degree they should. I'm concerned

that there are still districts in this province which don't

have family life programmes even in existence.

Because of that, we are doing a survey of the better family

life programmes going on in the Province of British Columbia in

many school districts with no controversy, with great success,

because the parents have been involved and the programme has

been well thought out. After that survey we will be ready to

assist the boards who are having difficulty.

But if you want to assist the area that you are specifically

talking about, may I say that you are not going to assist it

one bit with the statements you are making. In fact you will

just inflame the controversy.

Now either you believe in family life education or you

don't. I think it is most unfortunate for you to take the tack

you are, Madam Member.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I just want to make it quite clear to the

Member who just took her seat that the programme is optional,

that it is not compulsory, that it must involve family and

parent consultation before it is put in, and that the

Department of Education takes the responsibility in the area of

training professional people in this particular field. As a

matter of fact we have funded pilot projects to develop people

who are skilled in this area.

Let me emphasize again that the family life programme is not

just sex education. It is consumer education. It is learning

how to get along with your fellow person. There are many, many

other areas to family life education, and I think it is most

unfortunate that in 1975, when the students of the province are

asking for this programme, when many parents are asking for it,

that this programme should be held up in this House in the

manner in which you used it, a very negative manner. You are

not going to do a service to the young people of this

province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr.

[ Page 1847 ]

Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan discussed a health matter

under the Minister's vote, and so I thought that I would just like to

get up and discuss that matter for a minute or two as Minister of

Health.

Mr. Chairman, the Health department had a look at a

publication that was put together by a group of university

students two years ago under a LIP programme.

MR. PHILLIPS: Here's the Minister of Defence for all the

weak Ministers.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, don't look so pained!

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): You're so rude you give

everybody a pain!

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I know the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is feeling badly this evening

because his leader got up and discussed the Minister Without

Portfolio for northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) as the

first speaker and didn't even let his Member speak. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Chairman, what he did earlier was offer his

potential cabinet post to the Liberals.

In any event, I'd like to get back to this whole question,

and I think it is one that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we continue with the

debate? I ask the Hon. Premier and the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to restrain themselves, and I would

ask the Hon. Minister to proceed.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get on

with the book that was edited by a group of university

students. They offered it to the Health department, and my

department looked at it. The senior officials in the Health

department, many of whom have been there for any number of

years — a number of doctors in the department, a number of

public health nurses in the department, very responsible health

people — took a look at that book and they suggested that what

was in that book was certainly worthy of support because it was

understood. We moved it out into the community and found that

it was well understood by the people that it was to serve.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we went on, and when the home and school group has been

here we have shown it to those many, many, many parents that visit here, and

a number of people, parents of our children, supported that information. Getting

that information into the hands of children who should have access to it if,

in fact, they want it was, as far as they were concerned, a priority.

Therefore the Health department printed 50,000 copies of it

and made them available. Some school boards have not availed

themselves of it. That's on their heads. Others have. Some home

and school groups, PTAs, have made that book available to their

children, and that is what it is there for.

You know, to use all of the kind of mid-Victorian terms,

asking that children bury their heads in the sand.... Actually

what we are saying to children today in our society is: "Go to

the corner, pick up a Playboy , pick up some other kind of

magazine that is even far, far more revealing and that way get

your education."

I Suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should be telling

the truth to our children, not hiding their heads in the sand

and letting them learn everything they have to learn from the

gutter, as is the position, obviously, of the opposition over

here. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate....

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. COCKE: And to take that out on the Minister of

Education is just a bit much in this House. It shows that they

presented an amendment that isn't even worth tearing up. It's

unfortunate.

Mr. Chairman, while I'm on my feet I would just like to say

a couple of words...

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...about the Minister of Education, who has

been continually maligned by a group of irresponsible people

...

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...taking on one of the toughest portfolios

of any portfolio in government ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) and any other Members to restrain themselves,

please.

HON. MR. COCKE: taking on that kind of a portfolio in

inflated times, trying to fulfil the wishes and the aspirations

of everyone in society for a better education system, asked to

turn around a system that was created by her predecessor...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don Brothers.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...that was put together by all sorts of

bits and pieces. Mr. Chairman, to suggest

[ Page 1948 ]

that she hasn't done a great job is just absolutely

asinine.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's hear it for Don Brothers.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's the truth, though.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, it's not the truth at all, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's the truth and you know it. That's why

you're up there in her defence.

HON. MR. COCKE: For her defence! I got up here for one

reason and one reason only: because she was, as usual, wrongly

maligned.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you this....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: No. Do you know something? It was the most

difficult portfolio you could imagine in government. Not one of

those weaklings over there could even scratch the surface.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. COCKE: Not one is even capable of polishing her

shoes, Mr. Chairman. I support the Minister of Education

completely.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, quite obviously, that tirade we

were treated to says: there, but for the grace of the Minister

of Health, goes the good Lord, because he has stood up in this

House and proclaimed that he and his experts are the judge and

jury of what the children of this province should learn in

terms of health, health education, sex education, family life

education and goodness knows what.

Mr. Chairman, my point in this debate was the right of those

parents who were concerned about some of the content of this

programme and their right to exercise their option not to have

their children take it until the course was revised. Let it go

on the record that that Minister made it clear that he wants to

ban Playboy magazine and other magazines. That is his

position. Let the public know it. And let the public know that

Playboy is a reference book to the family life programme

in the Province of British Columbia, because it is. It is.

If the Minister of Health had taken the time to read the

curriculum and the instructions to the teachers, he would find

that Playboy is indeed one of the resource materials for

this programme.

Mr. Chairman, let it also clearly go on the record that the

Minister of Health of this province condones and advocates

birth control by, abortion.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's absolute rubbish!

MRS. JORDAN: You got up in this House...and I told that

Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that they are concerned

with the book "Rhythm and Blues." I am not afraid to name it,

as the Minister was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering an amendment

of non-confidence in regard to the Minister of Education; so I

would ask....

Interjection.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Oh, funny boy!

MRS. JORDAN: What a humorous comment from the joker of the

financial institution of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're so funny.

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

the Chair and speak to the amendment, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to carry this

on, but I think it should be very clear that the Minister of

Health spoke in defence of the Minister of Education's

position, as the public understands it, on this programme. He

is proving that he too sets himself up as judge and jury and is

unwilling to listen to the parents of this province. I would

say again: let it go on the record and let the public of

British Columbia know that the Minister of Health in this

province advocates abortion as a means of birth control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering an amendment

under the Minister of Education's vote. I would ask you to

confine your remarks to her vote.

MRS. JORDAN: That's all I wish to say in response to the

Minister.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): If this last tirade which

we have just been witnessing here is any indication, I think

that by comparison you would have to say it's like going

to kindergarten, comparing it with the furor that goes on in

the concerned parents' associations in Richmond and in Burnaby,

as you know, and now we've learned in Shuswap as well.

I think that likely it's another good indication of the

validity of the solution that I suggested this afternoon. More

flexibility should be developed in the school system by

allowing parent councils

[ Page 1849 ]

attached to local schools to make decisions just exactly like this.

I've looked at the curriculum and I know that there are good facets to

the family life programme. However, there are parents who would not

agree with either you or me and who take extreme exception to the 5 per

cent that is sex education related. As a result, I think that it would

be fantastic and I think that we could do away with a lot of the

misunderstanding and with a lot of the sense of imposed curriculum if

we allowed parent councils that I talked about this afternoon to be

given just exactly that responsibility with regard to individual

schools. It would not even have to be a school in itself; it could be a

classroom. I think it would be fantastic.

Well, one of the other areas, and one of the reasons for this motion

of no-confidence in the first place, was the area of school

construction. I want to thank the Premier for having given the figures

of actual school construction because, as you know, Madam Minister,

there is some misunderstanding.

There are different phrases being used when it comes to dollar

values. There is the phrase called "authorized expenditure." It has a

futuristic sound to it and doesn't give us any clear indication of what

actually happened in the construction field. Then there is the other

one: "bond issue." Once again, in comparing the figures for bond issue

in any given calendar year, it doesn't relate at all to the actual

number of dollars spent in capital construction.

In the press release in which the Minister said that some $91

million worth of public school construction did take place or was

authorized for 1974, a separate release also indicated that the $91

million wasn't all capital construction — only $85 million was and the

rest was replacement costs. I'd like the Minister to explain the

difference.

Also, the reason for the no-confidence is this: this Minister and

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) had a long hue and cry about

the catch up process that had to take place in the Province on British

Columbia so that we could have enough classrooms in the province. Yet,

when you take a look at the actual number of dollars spent and divide

it by the increased cost factor, you find out that the catch up process

is really not a catch up process at

all.

It's barely, barely keeping pace.

We have to preface any comparison with a few pertinent facts. For instance,

back in 1963 frame building construction was considered to be about $12 per

square foot. I'm not saying that you can build a brick-and-mortar school building

for $12, but I'm saying that was the frame building construction cost.

In 1971 those construction costs were $20 and by 1974 those

construction costs were $30. Let's just use those as comparative

figures to give us an indication of what the actual catch up process

really was.

In 1971...the Minister of Finance has just given me the

answer: $53,987,000 — say $54 million worth of capital

construction. That's for 1971. This was the last year of the

previous administration which was scolded by that Minister for

not doing enough in capital construction and not providing

enough classrooms. Then, lo and behold, in 1974 with costs having increased from $20 a square foot to $30 a square foot, a

bit of simple mathematics tells you that you'd have to spend $81

million just to have the same amount of construction. Yet the

information from the department says that $85 million was the actual

amount, and I don't see the catch up value.

Another thing that has caused some concern before — I've

asked this question and I don't believe I've ever

received the answer — is that whenever the Minister talks in

terms of the capital construction, he talks about teaching

areas rather than classrooms. I'd like to know whether that's

actually 751 classrooms. What is a teaching area? Does a

teaching area include a library? Does the teaching area

include gymnasium? If that is true, then in the last year did

we have 751 teaching areas including libraries and gymnasia or

is it exclusive of those? It becomes important. All that was

added in 1974, was 751 reaching areas, but something like 2,000

teachers were added in 1974. The question is: where do teachers

teach if they don't have a teaching area?

I wonder about the confidence. I wonder whether or not the

catch up process that the Minister talks about is really taking

place. This is one of the reasons for the motion of

non-confidence. Perhaps the Minister can explain. Perhaps the

catch up process is taking place, but it doesn't appear to be —

certainly not to me and certainly not to the school boards

around the province. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You can toss figures round, I know, Mr.

Member. But the point is that we can't give you the final

figures until the annual report comes out for last year, as you

know. The year we're going into....

MR. SCHROEDER: Oh, yes. But what about...?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think we have to realize, too, the point

I was making when I said catch up. I was referring at that

time, if you look back, to the catch up in the areas of

libraries and gymnasiums, which I think you would have to

concede as a member of the government.... You weren't a member

of the government at that time but a member of the party. There

was a freeze by the former government on libraries and

gymnasiums. When I spoke of catch up, I made it quite clear

that our government had no intention to impose such a freeze.

Since we have been in office we have

[ Page 1850 ]

improved libraries and gymnasiums.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think that was one of the great

condemnations of the former government: they did not think

libraries and gymnasiums were essential to a student's learning

environment in a school. It is something that the public of

B.C. will take a long time to forget and will remember about

the Social Credit government. They won't forget it.

The other area you asked about was in comparing the matter

of the number of teachers placed in the classroom against the

number of classrooms.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That were hired, rather. You're quite

right. There are areas where school boards have on their own

decided to move into what they call flexible class staffing —

teacher staffing. What that means is simply that they have come

to an agreement with their own staff so that sometimes two

teachers can operate out of one classroom. They use their

counsellors and their librarians — all those are included, of

course, as you know, when you talk about pupil-teacher

ratio.

I think it's a good idea. As you said, when we compare

construction costs, we're getting into the area of $40 a square

foot and more now. Yet I think I mentioned in an earlier speech

that I returned from Regina to find out that there they are

bringing them in still in the $20 a square foot bracket,

although costs and labour are cheaper. However, they are using

some innovative building practices.

As you know, I had a special conference of school trustees,

teachers and the department officials called to talk about ways

of creating more innovative and economical ways of building our

schools. But at no time did we say that we had any intentions

of cutting back on the libraries and the gymnasiums. At no time

has this government held back on requests from the school

boards when they have placed their requests. If there has been

a hold up.... I conceded it when we were discussing it earlier

in the 51-step area. We have been moving on that. We also have

considerably speeded up school construction with the removal of

the capital referendum, which I think you would agree would

bring about a speed up process.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I've been

listening to the Minister with interest here about this business of the 2,000

teachers being hired and the 750 teaching areas, or whatever the exact number

might be when the figures come down for this year. Mr. Chairman, how can the

pupil-teacher ratio be improving when the number of classrooms isn't going up,

roughly, as quickly as the number of teachers? That's not a catch up, Mr. Chairman;

that's just a catch-22. This government hasn't been performing on the task it

set itself on pupil-teacher ratios. I think that's abundantly apparent.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They know that out there.

MR. GIBSON: "They know that out there," the Hon.

Member says. They know that school by school.

Earlier on in this debate, on April 15, the last time we had

a chance to debate the Education Minister's estimates, I posed

to the Minister a certain number of questions which I'm not

going to repeat in any detail now. But just to refresh her

mind, I'll go through the subject headings and ask her if at

this time she would be kind enough to make some comment on the

arguments I made then.

The first proposal was that the assessment programme the

Minister's department has entered on in the question of

language arts should be extended throughout the curriculum

system and should be put on a continuing basis by an

institution which one might call the education council of

British Columbia, a group appointed by the Minister,

representing parents, teachers, students — all the groups of

the community which have a legitimate interest in this largest

single impact of any department of government or any industry

in this province on the lives of British Columbians — over

500,000 students and hundreds of millions of dollars. I think

that that sector is so important that it could well merit its

own independent council to advise the Minister.

The second representation I made to her was that the

legislative committee activity in the field of education, which

went forward in the restricted area of collective bargaining in

school district administration last year, should be expanded

by a continuing term of reference, and that committee could

very usefully, just in the Minister's own terms, sit around the

province and be a lightning rod and a weather vane for her

department and bring her good advice from around the

province.

I next raised the question of French language tuition

financing in this province and asked what representations the

Minister is making to Ottawa to improve this current

situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that we're considering the amendment and I would ask him

that rather than dealing with questions of a general nature,

which should more properly be brought up under the vote, he

relate his remarks to this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to satisfy myself

which way I should vote on this

[ Page 1851 ]

amendment, and you'll understand that the Minister's

performance of her duties in these areas has some relevance to

that.

The present situation, as I understand it, is that Ottawa

pays only 50 per cent of the first-year costs of French

language education. It's only seed money, in other words; it's

no continuing assistance to the province. My question is what

representation the Minister has made to Ottawa to improve this

situation, because it should be a continuing thing, Mr.

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) — you understanding

seed corn very well. We need more than that. We need something

continuous.

I've asked the Minister to explain, when the average

residential household in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District, after the application of the supplementary grant, has

a tax increase of over $50, how the increase in the school tax

removal grant of $40 coincides with the government's programme

of taking the taxes off property for schools. Obviously it's

sliding backwards.

Very brief questions, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Minister

what exactly is meant by the term of reference to this

committee to study the services provided to children in

independent schools. The Premier — I think it was during the

course of his estimates or the debate on the budget — gave us

some very tantalizing comments. He indicated that this

committee might be able to go beyond the narrow concept of

school buses, which was specifically mentioned, and expand into

the area of basic educational services to the 25,000 children

in this province who are presently denied, and whose families

are presently denied, the proper relief that they should have

in respect of the taxes that they pay for educational services

and which receive no assistance whatsoever from the public

purse toward the cost of education of those children —

education that in every way meets, and must meet, the

educational standards of this province. It's tax

discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on

this in a satisfactory way or else I will stand up and have a

great deal more to say about it later. It's 25,000 children in

this province.

The instructional unit. In the interests of the proper

attention to the education of primary students in this

province, will the Minister not now lower the instructional

unit size of primary classes from 25 down to 20 to finally

bring it to some equivalence with secondary size classes? This

is only right, Mr. Chairman, because the primary years are the

years when a child learns how to learn. If they are ever to

acquire a love of the acquisition of education in its broadest

sense throughout their lives, they must learn it in those

years.

I would ask the Minister what plans she has to implement some kind of a provincial

inspectorate, or means of auditing classroom performance. I appreciate that

that is a very prickly thicket. (Laughter.) I won't try that again, Mr. Chairman.

It's a prickly thicket.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's not the

converse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. GIBSON: Nevertheless, the Minister must enter it.

Mr. Chairman, continuing with the reiteration of these

questions which have yet to be answered, we must have — and I

asked the Minister to endorse — a reduction in the size of the

school districts whereby those districts have the freedom to

appoint their own district superintendents, currently appointed

in any district of a size below 20,000 as a provincial civil

servant by the Department of Education. If we really believe in

the autonomy for school districts, we must allow those

districts to appoint their own chief executive officers. I

appreciate the problems that the Minister has with her public

service and looking after these people who have served for many

years as they should be looked after.

So the threshold should be reduced gradually, but it should

be reduced immediately, Mr. Chairman, to school districts of

10,000. If the Minister has another number in mind, I'd like

her to suggest it. I'm certainly open to different sizes, but

let's establish a principle that that threshold is going

down.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): We started last year.

MR. GIBSON: We didn't start last year, Hon. Member. It was a

good deal before that. There's certainly been enough time to

say that the experiment has been a success. I certainly know in

my own school district in North Vancouver — and we're fortunate

enough to be above that threshold and appoint our own

superintendent — it has been a success.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Finally under this

section of my questioning,

I'd ask the Minister what she is prepared to say about the

future thrust of the province in terms of the pupil-teacher

ratio. I would submit to her that the time has come now to

cease putting all the concentration of the incremental funds of

the province into lowering that pupil-teacher ratio. I think

it's time to spend more of these funds on assistance to

teachers, to teaching assistants in the classroom, to the use

of outside experts who can bring, if not a great ability to

teach, a great fund of

[ Page 1852 ]

outside experience into the classroom to help the teacher in

giving these facts to the students, and an increase in the

funds available for audiovisual and other teaching aids.

There is a list of simple questions which I've asked the

Minister before and I've reiterated briefly now. I hope for

some answers in this debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First question, to the Hon. Member, in

answer — language arts assessment: he's hoping it will spread

beyond that and I can assure you that it is our intention to

move into other areas besides the language arts in an

assessment programme.

The educational council, I think, is a very interesting

recommendation and perhaps that's something that could be

discussed maybe in the education committee or in further

discussions with the Member himself.

I think the very fact that we're ready to listen to it is

more than you got from the former government when a suggestion

came up from a Member of the opposition, I'll tell you

that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Three years.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'd be quite interested. This is the

first year he's brought this up for our consideration.

The other point mentioned was about French. The programmes

are not really funded on a formula basis, as you know. There

are about 16 different programmes set up by the federal

government now which we have opted into. I'm not quite sure

specifically how to answer your question. There's no formula.

The federal government provides these programmes and, as you

know, since we became government we have done everything

possible to avail ourselves of any funds, which, of course, the

former government did not do.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, store it up. But the council of

Ministers do have this on their agenda when they discuss the

whole area of a second language. They do have a special

committee of officials who work with the federal government in

the whole area of the second-language programming. I can give

to the Hon. Member a copy of the outline of the programmes that

we're now involved in right across Canada, including B.C.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The tax removal grant. I would suggest, as that comes

under the Minister of Finance's estimates and not under mine, that you can question

that during the Minister of Finance's estimates.

The basic services committee. You were asking me to be more

specific about it. The committee is just being set up now. The

membership of the committee will be shortly announced, and I

can't answer what the recommendations are until the committee

brings them in. The terms of reference you can read in the

Premier's budget speech if you look at the provision of basic

services for children. You just said provision of basic

services. The committee will make recommendations on how

encompassing basic services should be. That is a job for the

committee which will include members from the independent

school association and other groups — of course, school

trustees.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I can't answer that until.... It's

completely different. This is the first time any government has

ever taken this step, and I think this has been received very

well across the province.

The instructional unit. Actually, when you ask to change the

number you're really just tinkering with the actual formula of

the sums of money. The most important thing here is what the

instructional unit value is, as you know. Just to change that

is a tinkering process.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. But, you see, the school board, Mr.

Member, has the right to set the size of classes. We simply

give them the sum of money; they can adjust the size of

classes. I am very pleased to say that the school boards of the

province, since we have given this increased funding over the

last three years, have moved in on decreasing in the elementary

areas particularly, which I encouraged them to do, and I'm

pleased to see they've done it.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Oh, I know, you were asking if we would

extend the matter of appointment of local superintendents. I'm

willing to talk to the BCTF and the school trustees on this

matter now. As you say, since I came into office it was one of

the first things we brought in — giving it to districts over

20,000. I'm willing to sit down with the teachers and the

trustees and our own district superintendents, naturally, to

discuss how this has been working. I'll also bring in the

personnel who have been involved as local superintendents.

What is the future thrust? Our government is still committed

to eventually bring down a further reduction. But I do agree

with the Hon. Member;

[ Page 1853 ]

there are other areas that have to be looked at too. One

thing I've always said is that the instructional skill of the

teacher must go along with the reduction of the pupil-teacher

ratio. But we believe in continuing with further

reductions.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask

the Minister a couple of questions this evening. Under her

Ministry in the Department of Education we have seen the

deterioration of morale in the classrooms. We have seen the

deterioration of morale of the teachers. We have seen the

deterioration of the morale of the school trustees. We have

seen the deterioration of the moral of the taxpayers.

In other words, this Minister has done a very poor job as

Minister of Education.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: This happens to be a non-confidence vote, and

the reason this non-confidence vote is on the floor is because

this Minister has done such a poor job in handling the

educational system of this province. It has deteriorated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in reading a

release from the Minister dated February 26, 1975,

regarding the pupil-teacher ratio. The release said:

" 'The government's commitment to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the province to 17 to 1

was made in good faith,' the Minister said. 'And this programme

will be continued when economic conditions improve,' Education

Minister Eileen Dailly told the delegates from the teachers'

organizations in Victoria today." When economic conditions

improve. In other words, this was just another one of her

political promises that she has been unable to fulfil.

" 'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect the continuation of the programme when

rampant inflation is coupled with the worst recession in

years.' "

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you, if this is the worst

recession in years, how come the Premier can go out and spend

$350 million on an ego trip to build an oil refinery

in this province? Now which is more important — the Premier's

ego and building an oil refinery or the education of the

children?

The Minister is the one who made the promise to reduce the

ratio, but now she hasn't got the money because the Premier is

off on an ego trip.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, I'll deal with that in a moment. But the Premier

has got $350 million to build an oil refinery that won't create one single more

job than if that same oil refinery was built by private money. But because of

the Premier's big ego — and he wants to build this oil refinery plonk in the

centre of Surrey, and he's going around buying up land like mad — that's why

the Minister hasn't money to run her Department of Education, and that's why

she can't fulfil her promise to reduce the ratio.

Why didn't you tell the school board representatives when

they were here that this is why you haven't got the money? You

talk about a recession. You'd never know there was a recession

in British Columbia — not the way the Premier spends money.

You'd never know there is a recession. Is that why we have all

this empty office space in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman,

because of the recession? Is this why the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can go around the province renting

practically every vacant building in the province? Is that a

recession? Is there a recession on when that is happening?

Madam Minister, you have lost your touch. You've lost your

touch with the Treasury Board. Everything else is priority now

over education, and I thought you were going to see that

education had priority in this province. Why, my gracious, even

expensive furniture for Stewart McMorran in Prince George has a

greater priority than education in this province these

days.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Stacking chairs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Stacking chairs, yes, stacking chairs in the

Consumer Services office in Prince George at $92 each.

Yes, $92 apiece, Mr. Chairman, for stacking

chairs.

Where are the priorities in this province? Is it education

or is it stacking chairs, or is it furniture for Stewart

McMorran's office, or is it oil refineries?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to talk about ICBC in just a

moment.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that before this

government came to power their great priority was education.

What is it now? The priority now is airplanes, jet airplanes,

while the children of this province go without a proper

education and the Minister doesn't fulfil her promises.

Airplanes have a greater priority, and jets for the Ministers

to travel around in at great speed, faster than the speed of

sound, Mr. Chairman. That's how they travel: faster than the

speed of sound, while our children go

[ Page 1854 ]

without learning their A's and their B's and their C's. Now,

Mr. Chairman, on top of all of this, we have to have a

committee to study to see whether they are learning, whether

they are getting their education or not.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be more important for the various

departments of government to go around buying up all the

private land in British Columbia than it is to educate our

children. There's where the priorities of this government have

gone — out the window. Oh, yes, out the window. Karl Marx says:

"Buy up all the land and control the people. Buy up all the

land, control the land and you control the people." That's

where the priorities are, not in educating the children of this

province.

I want to tell you that the morale in the classrooms of this

province has deteriorated under this Minister.

I'd like the Minister to tell me how many children have been

kicked out of school in the last 12 months in this province for

disobedience. How many children have been kicked out of school

for disobedience? How many suspended?

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. I'll answer the question for

the Minister. Very, very few.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many times have you been

disobedient?

MR. PHILLIPS: Very, very few. And I'll tell you why, Mr.

Chairman. I'll tell you why. It's because the teachers and the

principals no longer dare suspend a child for disobedience.

So what do they do? They suspend them and don't put it on

the record, Mr. Chairman. That's what's happening in the

schools today, because the Minister of Education has said it's

a black mark against the teacher and a black mark against the

principal and a black mark against the school when children are

suspended for disobedience. You're supposed to pat them on the

head and make good boys and girls out of them, but don't

suspend them for disobedience. It doesn't matter whether they

pour ink on the floor or acid on the rug or abuse the teacher.

Don't suspend them. That's the way this Minister is handling

the obedience problem in this province.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the teachers in this

province are frustrated, the principals of the schools are

frustrated, the school trustees are frustrated, and the school

counsellors are frustrated...

MR. LEWIS: And the Socreds are frustrated!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...because they have no way of bringing obedience to

the classroom in this province, because of the decree that that Minister has

brought down that to expel a student from school is a black mark against the

school and a black mark against the teacher.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What decree is that? Where is that?

MR. PHILLIPS: That decree is all over British Columbia and

you know it! You go out and talk to the people and get down out

of your airplane.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there

is no decree regarding that whatsoever. You will have to bring

it to me and show it to me. No such decree exists, and I can

assure the House it does not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll accept that it isn't emblazoned in black

and white in the regulations that the Minister puts out, but

the word filters down from the Minister, down through her

hierarchy, down through to the school boards: "Don't suspend

anybody in school for being disobedient because we'll know that

you haven't the capacity or the capability as a school teacher

to handle those disobedience problems." That's what's

happening.

So what's happening now, Mr. Chairman? They're disobeying

the rules. The children are still being suspended but they're

not being reported. The Minister knows what's going on. She

knows full well it's going on.

That's why the morale is so low in the classrooms of this

province. The morale in the classrooms of this province is low

because of the incompetence of that Minister — that's why.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): What about

the morale of used-care salesmen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister made certain promises to school

boards, and she made promises to the taxpayers and the Minister

of Finance made promises to the taxpayers of this province.

What happened to those promises? I know what happened to the

taxpayers; I know what they're going to do in the next

election, but what happened to those promises? Out the window

just like all your other promises. Your priorities have

changed. You'd rather build great monuments to the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) than you would spend

[ Page 1855 ]

money on education. But when you were in opposition you had

all the answers; oh, yes, you had all the answers.

MR. McCLELLAND: Vacant monuments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vacant promises to reduce school taxes!

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): What was that again,

Don?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's happening this year? Up go the school

taxes; up go all property taxes. One reason, Mr. Chairman, is

there's less property owned in the hands of private individuals

to pay the taxes; that's one reason. Up go the taxes! Away with

the priorities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They know you in Fort St. John.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they know you in Fort St. John,

too. I know what they call you up there in one of the schools

and I won't repeat it here. Those young people in Fort St. John

school at least had you tagged. You know what they called you.

You didn't fool those kids in Fort St. John any when you went

up there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "You pinko!"

MR. PHILLIPS: They didn't call you any pinko. They called

you exactly what you were, Mr. Premier. You didn't fool those

kids in Fort St. John; not one little bit you didn't — $350

million for a refinery while the kids of this province go

without learning their A's and their B's and their C's.

AN HON. MEMBER: And their D's and their E's!

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: There's where your vacant promises are.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Premier — I'll give him

credit for this — has finally realized that the Minister of

Education is incapable and incompetent, and the way of easing

her out is to cut off her money. That's how he's easing her

out. She's lost her touch. She used to be able to twist that

Premier right around her little finger, but now she's lost her

touch.

AN HON. MEMBER: She uses the big finger.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we've got two lady cabinet

Ministers and two fire departments. You snap your fingers at either of those

departments and do one little bit of criticism and out the door you go. Fired!

Political revenge!

I'll tell you, I am glad I'm not working for those

Ministers. I wouldn't last two minutes because I speak my own

voice; I speak my own mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. Member, we are discussing the

amendment to the motion.

MR. PHILLIPS: It bothers me, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Try to confine your remarks to that

amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am talking about education.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've been replaced by a Liberal.

MR. PHILLIPS: It bothers me when I travel about the northern

part of the province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not getting his cabinet job.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't even know it. You went down the

tube....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Members. Will you please, please

address the Chair?

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Why don't you

fire your Finance Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly glad to have the

Premier finally recognize that he and his government are going

down the tube. All the way! Going down the tube. He admitted it

right here in this Legislature tonight. He is concerned about

who is going to get the cabinet post when we are elected

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will tell you, he won't have anything to say

about it. That's one thing for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: His priorities have changed. Oh,

[ Page 1856 ]

what great humanists! Great humanists, worried about

education. He is more concerned about his ego and building up

$350,000 refineries and having airplanes...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and buying vacant land and vacant office

buildings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

please confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am confining my remarks to the

amendment. The amendment is regarding the incompetence of that

Minister. She is incompetent because she is unable to sell

Treasury Board on the priorities of education in this province.

The priority of education has gone down the drain because of

the Premier's different priorities.

When somebody points out to the Minister of Finance that

taxpayers' money is being wasted in this province, what does he

do? Is he concerned about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He smirks.

MR. PHILLIPS: He smirks and laughs about all the vacant

office buildings in this province. He smirks and laughs about

it!

When we talk about expenditures of $92 apiece for stacking

chairs in the Department of Consumer Services, what does he do?

He smirks and laughs. I'll tell you, that Premier has lost his

priorities, his sense of humanity.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, financial geniuses, sure. Are we going to

put schools on all the land of all the various departments?

We've got the Department of Public Works, the Department of

Economic Development, the B.C. Petroleum Corp., the B.C. Land

Commission, the Department of Recreation and Conservation, the

Department of Agriculture, the Department of Mines and the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia all buying land in British

Columbia. That takes tax dollars, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...tax dollars that should be going to keep

the promises of this government to reduce the pupil-teacher

ratio.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): The Minister

of Mines isn't buying land.

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't bought any land, no. But you sure

killed the mining industry, Mr. Minister; you sure skilled the

mining industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what bothers me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the Hon. Members to

please, first of all address the Chair and, secondly, to

confine their remarks to the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea!

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lose your cool! (Laughter.) You're a

nice, quiet Member. There is no need to shout in this

committee. Don't follow your predecessor. Don't follow the

Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) who shouts continually.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member please continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. You know, it is no laughing matter.

MR. BENNETT: The Premier's laughing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, but the Premier's laughing.

MR. BENNETT: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. BENNETT: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you get in your jet and go off into

the wild blue yonder? That's where your priority is.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Education says: "When rampant

inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years Well, I would

never know, Mr. Chairman, watching the spending of this government,

that there was ever a recession in British Columbia. I have watched

other governments bring

[ Page 1857 ]

down their budgets. They have tried to have a little grip on

spending, but not this government. The only place they've got a

grip on spending is when it comes to the Department of

Education. Then they've got a grip on spending. Oh, yes, they

can cut down on spending in the Department of Education while

all the other Ministers go off and spend money at their whim.

The Minister of Finance has no control whatsoever.

That wouldn't be half as bad, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister

of Education would restore the morale in the classroom, restore

the morale of the teachers of this province, of the school

boards in this province, and of the pupils too! It has gone out

the window, and that's why this Minister has a vote of

non-confidence against her. The people of this province are

concerned. They are concerned about the education of their

children and they are concurred because this Minster has not

fulfilled her promises, is not doing the job that she promised

to do.

All we have had from this Minister is commissions and

commissions and studies. Now we are going to have a study; we

are going to have a task force to determine whether the

children are being educated or not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, in your case they failed.

MR. PHILLIPS: If that Minister had the ability to make

decisions and listen to the teachers in this province, she'd

know what is going on. But no, she doesn't want to listen; she

has to have some specialist run around and spend three or four

months doing a survey. Then when they don't bring in the

results that she wants, she'll fire them. That's right! Right

on! She'll fire them.

MR. BENNETT: Maybe the Premier will do it on television.

MR. PHILLIPS: It makes my heart bleed as a taxpayer to see

what is happening to education in this province. It makes my

heart bleed. I'm glad my sons are out of the public school

system, practically, now because I'd be concerned. But I am

concerned for the rest of the taxpayers in this province — I'm

gravely concerned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

MR. PHILLIPS: You go build your oil refinery!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak

rather briefly and very seriously about the problem of drug usage in the schools

of British Columbia. Yesterday we were given a copy of a brochure given out

by the Alcohol and Drug Commission entitled "A Professional Guide to Alcohol

and Drug Information." In the leaf of this presentation was a study done by

two individuals from the Narcotic Addiction Foundation of British Columbia about

drug use among Vancouver secondary school students in 1970 to 1974.

That study showed that 71 per cent of the students had used

alcohol, 64 per cent had used tobacco, 42 per cent had used

cannabis, 22 per cent had used LSD, 9 per cent had used glue

and solvents, 7 per cent had used amphetamines, 8 to 9 per cent

had used tranquilizers, 10 per cent had used barbiturates and

1.5 to 2 per cent had used heroin. The people who conducted

this study noted under "drug education" that about half as many

students had been exposed to a drug education programme in 1974

as in 1970.

The key piece of information, Mr. Chairman, that I want to

get across from this study is the statement from this report

that, in general, exposure to a drug education programme was

associated with a slightly higher incidence of drug use and

poorer knowledge about drugs.

What this study had to say was that the drug education

programme being presented to the students in British Columbia

was doing harm. There is little doubt in my mind as to why the

drug education programme is doing harm. It's because the

information being prepared by our Alcohol and Drug Commission

education department is not only wrong, it's an invitation to

students to use drugs. Worse than that, we had just recently a

roundup of drug pushers in British Columbia as a result of six

months undercover work by police officials. Of the first 31

drug pushers taken into custody in that roundup, 29 were

released on their own recognizance without bail.

We've got a situation, to put it in the most flattering

terms, that is absolutely disgraceful in this province. On the

one hand we have drug pushers being identified, arrested and

then released to carry on their trade among drug users on the

street and drug users and pushers among our high school

population in British Columbia. We've got an, education

programme being promoted by the Alcohol and Drug Commission,

funded by the provincial government, supplied to our schools,

which is incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member to

please relate his remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of this Minister and speak to the

amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I am. I want the drugs out of our

schools in British Columbia. I want the people who are pushing

those drugs removed

[ Page 1858 ]

from society and removed from any exposure to the youngsters

of this province, who not only do not know better but are given

false information by the Government of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I travelled down to Ottawa to present

information to the Senate committee considering a bill to

reduce penalties for cannabis use. The principal point I wished

to make in this trip to Ottawa was that the young people of our

province and Canada were being victimized by false information

being presented to them by officials supported by government

into schools supported by the government — being supported by

interpretation of laws and administration of laws that worked

to the advantage of those profiting from the drug trade. The

information I presented to the Senate committee was not

essentially different in its content to information presented

to the United States Senate in its hearings conducted into drug

abuse in May of 1974.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order, please. As interesting as

the remarks may seem, I would please ask you to relate and

confine your speech and your remarks to the amendment and to

the motion before this House.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I said that I was going to speak

briefly...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...and that I was going to speak seriously. I

wanted to speak on the subject of education. I want to ask the

Minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your remarks relate more to the

jurisdiction of the Minister of another department, I'm asking

you at this time to please confine your remarks to the

amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this booklet, "A Professional

Guide to Alcohol and Drug Information," is being

supplied to counsellors in the schools of British Columbia.

This is the basis of information being presented to our

secondary school students. When this information is presented,

a study conducted among Vancouver school students shows that it

encourages drug use.

Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking not just to the Minister, but to the parents of

British Columbia. I'm saying to them that they are being let down by the Minister

of Education. They are being let down by officials of the provincial government,

being paid for by their taxes. The end result of this is that inaccurate information

encouraging the use of drugs is being presented to their children. I say to

this parliament, to the national government and to the people of Canada that

something is dreadfully wrong when it is impossible to appear before the Senate

committee, as I did, and have that information transmitted to the people of

Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the hearing that I appeared before in the

Senate was taped in parliament, but was screened out by the CBC

in Toronto and was not presented to the people of Canada. I

stress this only to illustrate that information telling the

truth about drugs, when that information is unwelcome, is not

transmitted to the students and not transmitted to the parents.

Because of this, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education has a

particularly important duty. She must categorically reject what

is presented in this booklet.

Mr. Chairman, I said that I wished to speak briefly. I want

to remind the Minister that at one time I offered the services

of our particular laboratory to draw up educational materials

for the schools, because we're engaged in doing basic research

in this field, and because of this we have to have knowledge of

the current scientific literature.

Speaking of cannabis as one example, because the Member

asked about this, the hearings before the United States Senate

last May included testimony by a Nobel prize winner, who had

previously published in the scientific literature papers that

we, like many other scientific groups, were familiar with,

indicating that a single dose of cannabis takes more than a

week to excrete. It's not like alcohol where what's here today

is gone tomorrow. It collects in the fatty tissues in the brain

and is there to continue its effects on a long-term basis.

People who think that they are free of cannabis if they smoke

up occasionally in a school are deluding themselves. It's

retained in the tissues on a long-term basis.

There's nothing about this kind of thing in the

chapter on

cannabis in this particular publication. In fact, nothing....

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it does...improves sex, despite the fact

that scientific evidence is in the literature produced before

the senate committee indicating exactly the opposite.

There's nothing in this brochure directing you toward the

literature, again presented before the U.S. Senate committee,

indicating that intellectual performance deteriorates and that

brain damage can occur. These are the scientific facts

presented in the literature first before the U.S. Senate

committee. I was pleased to do it before our U.S. Senate in

Canada. Can you find it in this document?

Interjections.

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. McGEER: No sir, you can't find it in this document. You

can't find anything damaging about drugs — not even heroin — in

this useless piece of garbage. But at the same time we have

presented here a report, done in British Columbia, indicating

an alarming use of drugs in our schools, showing that drug use

is on the increase and that people who have been exposed to

this government's education programme are more likely to use

drugs than if they haven't been exposed.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) points out that I said the U.S. Senate in Canada. It

was produced first of all before the U.S. Senate and secondly

before our own Canadian Senate.

These matters are on the official record, but it's been very

difficult to communicate it to the people of Canada, and we

find, in looking at what goes forward to the school counsellors

in British Columbia, precisely the opposite to the truth.

I look with horrow at the amount of money we're spending on

the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission. The amounts of money that

are being wasted....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

be more pointed in relating his remarks to the Minister of

Education's vote, and particularly this amendment.

MR. McGEER: There's $192,716 to education, that kind of

thing. Counter-productive. False information doing damage. Now

who's going to bring this kind of thing under control? Who's

going to tell the truth to the students? Who's going to

reassure the parents, who unfortunately already know the truth

because they can see the damage being done to the youngsters as

soon as they commence the use of drugs. Yet the youngsters go

to the schools. They don't need to believe their parents; they

can believe what's taught to them. They don't need to believe

the truth because they get lies at school. And where's the

origin of all of this? The origin is in our B.C. Alcohol and

Drug Commission.

What could be worse? What could be more warping and

corrupting to the coming generation of British Columbians than

to give them falsely reassuring information about the use of

drugs, subsidized with the taxpayers' money? I just find it

unbelievable. I don't want to take up a lot of time of the

House, but I think the public is entitled to know the

truth.

I think the Minister is obliged to commence a programme of telling the truth

in our schools, letting the students know what it is like. Tell them the truth.

Why tell them lies about drugs? Why do we need to do that? Why do we need to

spend the taxpayers' money on this kind of thing?

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister to call all of those books

back. Condemn the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to put these

people in jail, and for heaven's sake clean up our schools.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I want to make it quite clear, Mr.

Chairman, that I have not approved that book. As Minister of

Education, as I have not seen the book, I do not intend to give

my endorsation of that book and its distribution until I have

had an opportunity, with my officials, to read it.

My understanding is that it is a teachers' or a counsellors'

guide. I am still trying to track down whether it has been sent

out officially to the counsellors. I want to inform you that

the route that has been agreed to is only that it should come

before me, as Minister, for endorsation before anything is put

in the schools, and that is what I will be doing. I will be

studying the book and I'll certainly be glad to report to the

House further.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I was very interested in

the remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) concerning drugs in the schools and the proliferation

of drugs throughout British Columbia.

I would like to remind that Member, Mr. Chairman, that the

highest percentage of drug users in Canada is right in the

greater Vancouver area. It is a very difficult thing to control

because they get their drugs from the United States, and they

get their drugs from the Far East. They come in through British

Columbia. They come in through Vancouver, through that port,

and as a result the problem has been here for a long, long

time, but during the last few years it has increased

tremendously. It is not because of the education system that it

is increasing in the schools; it is because it is very, very

difficult to control federally and it is very difficult to

control provincially.

The Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) department has

set up a programme called CLEU in which they are trying to do

something about controlling the proliferation of drugs. But

also let me say that there are educational programmes going on

right now in our educational system that are trying to do

something about lessening the use of alcoholism and of drugs.

From this very report that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) mentioned is a statement I don't think he read.

Let me read from it.

This report is to Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human

Resources, by Irene Peters, who is a commissioner of the

Alcohol and Drug Commission. She herself is a native Indian,

and in her report she says:

[ Page 1860 ]

"The native Indian education training programme, which has

been set up across British Columbia, has 10 women enrolled in

the Williams Lake centre. I spoke with these women, who all

stressed the fact that alcohol had affected their lives

personally, or the lives on their reserves. They all realize

that this education programme is an opportunity to begin

changing life on the reserve when they return home to commence

their teaching careers.

"This on-the-job training is one excellent way of wakening

the people to the fact that there are alternative ways of

solving problems other than by alcohol. I was approached by the

National Health and Welfare to take

part in a seminar which was

held at Williams Lake for the 14 native women who received a

three-week course on family health aides. These women are now

working out of their various reserves, and I am sure part of

their work will encompass alcohol and the human body.

"Alcohol remains the No. 1 health problem amont the

Indians."

That is only one aspect. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that

another aspect is the fact that very often it is people who

haven't got a proper background of nutrition who turn to drugs

and alcohol. If they haven't got a good nutritional background,

if they haven't got space for recreation, then they turn to

something else, and usually it happens to be drugs and

alcohol.

We have good home economics programmes in our schools, but

some are much superior to others. In Vancouver, for instance,

most of the secondary schools and quite a number of the primary

and elementary schools have cafeterias.

Some of these cafeterias in some schools are run by an

agency that brings the food in. It's a catering service from

outside and they bring in soft drinks and things that are put

into slot machines so that the students can buy just about

whatever they want. In other schools the cafeteria is run by

the school, mainly by the students.

Mrs. Margaret Murphy, who is the director of home economics

in Vancouver had this to say on April 5 in The Vancouver

Sun :

"A teacher in a lower socio-economic-level school says that

students of families on welfare spend more money on the machines" — that is,

on pop machines and things of that kind — "than they would consider spending

at lunch. In some cafeterias, pop, chocolate bar, chips and Cheezies vending

machines stand right inside the entrance to the door while the milk machines

stand at the far end of the room. In this atmosphere, even if the student has

brought lunch, he will eat something of it, throw out the rest and get something

from the machines. Garbage disposals are frequently the recipients of half-eaten

sandwiches and fruit.

"In the schools' student-operated cafeterias where vending

machines have been removed, the sale of white milk, which is

subsidized by the school board, has shot up impressively.

Kitsilano, David Thompson, Templeton and Charles Tupper

Secondary Schools have student cafeteria programmes. Each day

they offer a nutritionally balanced hot meal for a low

price.

"One of the teachers, Mrs. Sawyer, from Templeton, said that

before the school board started to subsidize white milk, more

than 250 cartons of chocolate milk were sold each day compared

with 50 cartons of 2 per cent white milk. However, since the

subsidy has started, the numbers have now completely

reversed."

I'm very happy each time I stand up to be able to support

this Minister because she listens to what is happening in the

schools. She has gone around to see what's happening in the

schools; she has listened to what suggestions have been made to

her. There are tremendous innovations going on in the schools.

Some of these people who are speaking against them should only

go in and see for themselves.

However, I would like to stress the fact that, particularly

in areas where people are on low incomes, I do think something

must be done to provide some sort of a milk subsidy. I would

hope that the Department of Health and the Department of

Agriculture would get together with the Department of Education

to try to subsidize milk for school children right throughout

British Columbia.

What Vancouver is actually doing is providing a 5-cent

subsidy on each half pint of milk so that schools that want to

participate in the programme can do so and can get half a pint

of milk for 10 cents. I realize that during the last 13 years,

from about 1962 till now, the price of milk has doubled.

Actually, the price of milk hasn't gone up nearly as rapidly as

has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just mention to the

Hon. Member that we are considering the amendment of support or

criticism of the Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine her remarks to the amendment.

MRS. WEBSTER: This is definitely in relation to this because

I'm trying to make this assembly see that some of these things

are necessary. If other Members can talk about cannabis and

other things in the schools, surely we can talk about better

nutrition in the schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 1861 ]

MRS. WEBSTER: A provincial subsidy, if it was shared with

school boards, would not necessarily mean such an awful lot to the

provincial government or to individual school boards. If such a thing

could be arranged, it would be possible for students to get milk at 5

cents for a half pint.

Mr. Chairman, there are about 500,000 student going to schools in

British Columbia. About 90 per cent attendance is more or less the

standard, regular attendance. This shouldn't be too much of an expense

either to the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture or

the Department of Education. I am sure that something could be arranged

along this line if the Ministers could get together for this.

Milk is one of the most important things in children's diet.

Teenagers require about a quart of milk a day to get the proper amount

of calcium.

Elementary children require a pint. That means they would get

approximately one-half to one-third of their daily requirement of

calcium by getting their half-pint of milk a day.

I hope the Minister will give this consideration, and I certainly will not support the amendment.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I was very happy to hear the

Minister say that she hasn't approved this book that the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was talking about.

I must remind the Chairman that this book is designed to be used in

the schools of British Columbia. But since the Minister said she knew

nothing about this book and had not approved it, it only proves the

need for the non-confidence motion we have on the floor of this House

today. The Minister should know about this book before it gets used in

the schools of British Columbia. It is being offered for use in the

schools of British Columbia right now.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the introduction in this book.

It says: "It is a series designed to increase teachers' knowledge and

confidence in the area of drug abuse." But it also says, and this is

probably the most critical part of

this introduction: "It is hoped that with the help of this information

contained in this book teachers will be able to respond accurately and

sensitively to student challenges and questions on drug use."

Accurately and sensitively to the questions that students put about

drug use.

Well, how do we respond accurately and sensitively? I'd just like to flip through

this book for a moment. We tell the students that if they use marijuana, they

can expect certain changes in their attitudes and in their behaviour, and those

changes will include hilarity, increased flow of ideas, enrichment of sensory

experience, heightened imagination and feelings of enhanced creativity and spontaneity.

There is usually, but not always, an increase in appetite or enjoyment of food,

better sex.

This book is designed to help teachers respond accurately

and sensitively. It then goes on to say that adverse reactions

to cannabis use are rare. Yet we heard the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tell us that that's

a stupid and incorrect statement, because we know very well

that adverse reactions to cannabis are not rare, and all

scientific evidence shows us now that it can be very adverse and

very significant in the changes of mood that take place.

It also goes on to tell us that "research has said that it's

impossible to assess the safety implications of cannabis

intoxication on driving." My God! The government itself

financed a research project at UBC on the effects of cannabis

intoxication on driving, and it certainly wasn't a wishy-washy

result that came out. It said clearly: "Cannabis intoxication

affects driving the, same way that alcohol intoxication does."

At UBC, financed by this government...and yet this report by

this government tells us that there is no research.

I'd like to know how this book could ever get into this

form, this far, with all the money that was spent on it,

without the Education Minister knowing about it. The Human

Resources Department, when we phoned them about it, knew

nothing about it. The British Columbia School Trustees

Association knows nothing about it. The British Columbia

Teachers Federation knows nothing about it. Nobody knows

anything about this book except the stupid people who prepared

it and are now foisting it on the young people of this

province. Do you know what it says about heroin in this

book?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that the drug

commission is not under the administrative responsibilities of

this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this book is meant to be used

in the schools of British Columbia. It's being offered to the

teachers and counsellors in the schools of British Columbia,

and we're talking....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): But it's not

accepted.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you telling us that you're rejecting

this booklet? Is it official government policy that this book

is rejected?

MR. GARDOM: Yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes or no is right. Don't give us that

stuff. The thing is being offered to the students of British

Columbia as a guide for the

[ Page 1862 ]

teachers to respond accurately and sensitively to the

questions about drug abuse.

Do you know what it says about heroin? It says:

"The treatment programmes which attempt to get

heroin-dependent persons to abstain completely have had very poor

success rates. In fact, where abstinence has been achieved, it may

simply be replaced by another dependence such as alcoholism, excessive

eating, or dependence upon a therapeutic community."

What would you sooner have your child doing: eating too much

or popping heroin? What a stupid statement by a department of

government! What a stupid statement!

MR. GARDOM: Dangerous!

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and dangerous. Most dangerous to the

future lives of many of our youngsters.

It also goes on to say that maintenance programmes appear

the most promising of current approaches to the problem of

opiate dependence. Are maintenance programmes a policy of this

government? I can recall asking the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) the other day whether that was a policy. Is

heroin maintenance a policy of this government? Sounds like

Peter Stein to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

be more specific in relating this to the administrative

responsibility of this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that this Minister

should know all about this book, and because she knows nothing

about it then she's incompetent in her job and that's why we

have a non-confidence motion before this House today. She knew

enough to fire all her research assistants, but certainly this

kind of research which is foisted on the people of British

Columbia gets short shrift from the Minister.

It is an educational problem. It's one that's been presented

to the people, to the educationists in this...and do you know

what? Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister doesn't know this. There

are eight sections in this book — nine, actually, but one of

them is miscellaneous and there's nothing in it.

MR. BENNETT: Must be the Minister Without Portfolio.

MR. McClelland: Right on. There are eight sections in this book, Mr.

Chairman, and seven of those eight sections were prepared by the Drug and Alcohol

Commission of Alberta, and just given to this government — or stolen, or whatever

it is that they do with them. They weren't even prepared by this government

but by Alberta, where there is no drug problem!

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's no drug problem to speak of in

Alberta and you know it. I wish you'd go back to Alberta; it's

be better for the people of British Columbia if you got out of

this province, I'll tell you that.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): That's where all B.C.'s going

now!

MR. McCLELLAND: The only part of this programme that was

prepared by the Alcohol and Drug Commission of British Columbia

is the

section called "Drug Laws," and mostly it just

repeats what the drug laws are in this country, except that it

is, in my opinion, again, an invitation to drug use. This book

should be called "A Guide to a Better High." It's a shocking,

scurrilous, dangerous document; and for that Minister not to

know what's going on is absolutely incredible and incompetent.

It isn't much wonder that there is a non-confidence motion

against that Minister if that's the way she runs her

department.

I'd like to ask where the controls are in this government.

Can an Alcohol and Drug Commission have free rein to put

anything it wants in the schools of British Columbia? It's a

commission headed by a man who is soft on drugs and who has

gone into the schools in Vancouver and told those schools that

marijuana should be legalized — Peter Stein. Does he have free

rein to do anything he wants in this province? Does the Human

Resources Minister have the right to put anything he wants into

the schools, over the objections or non-objections or the

ignorance of the Minister of Education? That's the way it

seems, Mr. Chairman.

If this programme is supposed to be an educational

programme, like every other programme that that Minister had

advanced it has failed. It is not an educational programme, Mr.

Chairman. There is no information given in this book about what

to do once you recognize that a child is on drugs or how to

handle a child on drugs. There's nothing in this book. There is

no guide to any agencies from which some help can be received

for youngsters — no guide whatsoever!

MR. BENNETT: Shocking!

MR. McCLELLAND: There is very little mentioned in this book

as to prevention or education or any other sources of education

that could be influential to students. It's a guide of

misinformation

[ Page 1863 ]

and lies. As I said before, it's a distortion, and it's an

invitation, in fact, to drug use. I hope that the Minister will

go home tonight — and if she doesn't have a copy of this book

I'd be glad to lend her mine — and read it, and weep with the

rest of us who have read it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say right now that I

have no hesitation in supporting this Minister. I think we've

experienced a common type of tirade by the opposition, tonight

- irresponsible.

I would like to just touch on the Home and School Federation

in regard to family life, and what they have to say about

it.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you go and fix that road that fell

out? A road fell out in your riding!

MR. LEWIS: There's lots more than that fell out when the

Social Credit went out, and I hope they never come back in.

I'll tell you that.

Do you know the Home and School Federation feels that the

Minister of Education is doing such a good job in this

province? That is the reason why their membership has dropped

off in this province.

For the Member for South Peace River to stand up in this

House and say that the teachers and the students and the

taxpayers are all disenchanted with this Minister is absolutely

false, They haven't travelled around this province and

listened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've travelled....

MR. LEWIS: All you've done is travel around this province,

spreading hate, vilifying, and lying!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEWIS: You're just like your friend, Grace McCarthy,

moving around, talking about loaded guns....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member for Shuswap

to withdraw the imputation that an Hon. Member of this House

has been telling lies.

MR. LEWIS: I haven't heard the Hon. Member lie in this

House, but he has lied all over this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order required. I am asking

the Hon. Member for Shuswap to withdraw any imputation against another Hon.

Member of this House.

MR. LEWIS: I withdraw. I withdraw, but what he is saying is

certainly questionable, I'll tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll accept the withdrawal of

the Hon. Member. But I think it would be more appropriate, if

he doesn't agree with the remarks or if he doesn't think they

are true, that he would make some remarks such as the remarks

are in error or the comments are in error, rather than saying

he is lying or deliberately lying.

MR. LEWIS: I think it is certainly appropriate that that

group at the far end is trying to meld in with the Liberals.

They say birds of a feather fly together. Down there I think we

have the seagulls and the vultures. For them to try to spread

around this province the type of hate, the false statements,

the innuendoes....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about that Egg Marketing Board. Go

ahead!

MR. LEWIS: Don't you start talking! You're not even a part

of them!

MR. FRASER: Go ahead.

MR. LEWIS: You're not even part of them. Which cabinet post

would they even offer you, eh?

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Who are they offering the Minister of Education's

post, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to

the amendment, please?

MR. LEWIS: Are you offering the Minister of Education's post

to that absent-minded Member there?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest you get Pat McGeer as your

Minister of Education. He is the absent-minded professor.

Interjections.

[ Page 1864 ]

MR. LEWIS: He only remembers to come to this House about 10

per cent of the time.

I would like to read you a little statement by the Home and

School Federation. It says: "Outgoing president Kathryn Schaun,

who has served for five years, said later she thought

federation membership is declining because of an NDP open-door

education policy." That is the type of reaction that we are

getting from the public out there, not from you bunch of

scary-hairy people!

" 'The local associations don't really need us anymore,' she

said. 'I think that's a good thing. They, of course, are

concerned with their own problems, and all they have to do now

is to write to the Minister of Education and she responds to

all matters, no matter how trivial.' "No matter how trivial!

She'll even listen to complaints about the Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the Egg Marketing Board. We'd

like to hear a little more about that.

MR. LEWIS: Well, we should have you there. You are a rotten

egg, I'll tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair did not hear the

remark. Would the Hon. Member continue unless someone wishes to

repeat it?

MR. LEWIS: The Member for North Okanagan went into a tirade

on family education. I think it was most irresponsible. It was

the same type of programme and same type of things that Grace

McCarthy has been going around this province saying, the same

type of thing: a fear campaign. Use the kids as a pawn; try to

get everybody worked up regardless of what the outcome is. You

didn't even take a look at the circular that was sent around

this province by the Minister. You didn't even read it.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I'll tell you, I've got more grit than you have,

my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got more gall too.

MR. LEWIS: This is what the Minister sent around to all

school boards in this province, and all teachers were aware of

what was in it.

MRS. JORDAN: What was the date on it?

MR. LEWIS: March, 1973. You're a long way behind times.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about the school taxes.

MR. LEWIS: It said:

"It is emphasized that in the rationale for school

programmes, there is no thought of contradicting or interfering

with parental rights or responsibilities. The intention is to

simply allow the schools to supplement, not supplant, the

education parents wish to give their children. Nor is it

envisaged that school programmes would try to impose a

state-determined set of values or code of behaviour. The only

concern is that of assisting in implementing the age-old

educational objective, 'Know thyself.'

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Members to

listen to the Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: I have no problem in defending any policies which

this Minister of Education has brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. LEWIS: Could you defend old smothers Brothers, eh?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: You're gonna have to defend him pretty

quick.

MR. LEWIS:

"At the elementary school level a resource guide is being

prepared for general distribution. This guide will include

further references to the kinds of objectives deemed

appropriate at this level, as well as ideas and suggestions as

to the kinds of topics or questions concerning personal growth

and family living likely to arise at different age levels. Also

included are suggestions for using the teachable moment and

some teaching materials which have been found helpful. This

resource guide should not be regarded as a set of courses to be

covered; nor is it intended to be prescriptive, as the term

implies. It is simply a resource which teachers may use.

"At the secondary level, it is envisaged that local

authorities, at their discretion, will give consideration to

the development of local programmes deemed appropriate to the

needs of pupils and the desires of the community."

Now if that isn't plain in regard to what the

[ Page 1865 ]

Minister was asking — she was asking that the community and the parents and the school boards work together.

"Such programmes may be offered on a trial basis and

are subject to the approval of the board of school trustees and the

Department of Education. A number of districts have already implemented

such programmes.

"A set of provincial guidelines will be developed

based upon the advice and experience of local schools and district

authorities. In the meantime, the Department of Education offers the

following recommendations and suggestions for consideration: public

schools are the agent of the community and it follows from this that

what they do in this field should have the approval of the board of

school trustees as a representative of the community.

"Parents have both rights and responsibilities which

must be respected. Any proposed studies in this field must involve

consultation with parents and a readiness to take particular action in

response to parents' advice and requests affecting the programme

generally or participation of their children."

MR. GARDOM: Are you quoting?

MR. LEWIS: This is a circular that was sent out by the Minister of Education Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member continues, I would appreciate it if Hon. Members

do have a point of order, that they stand in their place and make a

point of order in the proper manner rather than shouting at the Chair.

MR. LEWIS: I'm trying to clear up the false information that the Member

for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) gave this House — the false information.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, would the Member clarify whether that document is signed by the Minister of Education or Mr. Meredith?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I just want to keep the record straight, Mr. Chairman. The Member was accusing me of falsehoods....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order. I would. ask the Hon. Member for Shuswap to continue.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"It is essential that there be a clear and precise

explanation of what is being proposed, why, or for what

purpose, and how it will be carried out. If is recommended that

parents be involved at this stage" — that parents are to be

involved.

"Disagreement and criticism of studies in this field arise

from two sources: (1) misunderstanding" — and that's what our

friend from North Okanagan was trying to spread around,

misunderstanding — "or misinterpretation of what is proposed,

and (2) failure to recognize or accept the fact that the nature

of public school imposes limitations on what it can and should

teach in a compulsory, group-organized educational system.

Considering the nature of the topics or content in relation to

pupils, it should be recognized that maturity, background, and

family attitudes will differ. While it may be possible to

identify common needs, or common learning for a given group,

there will be the need to recognize and make provisions for

differences. It is suggested that thought be given to including

an individualized instruction component in dealing with some

aspects. This may simply involve ensuring that an individual

pupil can obtain an answer to a personal question from a

reliable individual in private.

"Some proposed programmes, in terms of time and detail,

appear to have over-emphasized the study of what is referred to

as the sexuality of the individual." This is exactly what the

Minister said. "It is recommended that in line with the

philosophy of studying personal and family life, consideration

be given to a total concept of family life, including topics or

problems in the social life and the economic life of the

individual in the family.

"Past experience indicates that in organizing the content of

a proposed programme, there is need to avoid undue repetition

and an overemphasis of group discussion. The cyclical theory of

organizing content according to

[ Page 1866 ]

maturity levels should not be carried to extremes. The

effectiveness of studies in this field......"

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

proceeds, I would ask the Hon. Members not to make such a

racket because otherwise I can't determine whether the Hon.

Member is in order when he is speaking. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"Teachers should not be assigned to this work unless they

wish to be and are considered knowledgeable and capable of

doing it. Resource persons should not be called upon to teach

simply because they happen to have a particular expertise. Both

teachers and school personnel, and resource persons need to

plan jointly. And the latter must be clear as to what is

expected and how it may be best provided. Consideration should

be given to in-service educational programmes and to procedures

which permit an integrated interdisciplinary approach to

teaching.

"There are many learning material books, films, pamphlets on

the market and many of them have been produced in accordance

with particular objectives, philosophy and value systems. It is

strongly recommended that this be identified and assessed in

terms of the philosophy underlying the programme. Otherwise,

such material may well defeat or distort the programme.

"Considerable professional judgment and discretion is needed

considering the fact that what is done in schools is generally

judged as having the sanction and acceptability of an

educational authority. It is recommended that programmes be

subject to regular professional evaluation and reports."

Now if that isn't clear enough that the Minister wished a

programme to be developed that was acceptable to the parents,

to the teachers, to the students and to the trustees, I don't

know how much more plain it could be.

MR. FRASER: The Minister never signed that.

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest that you get a copy of that. Each

one of you can read it before you stand up in this House and

make the type of representation that the Member for North

Okanagan made.

MR. FRASER: I want to tell you that we talk to the people;

we don't read documents from the civil service.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I would also challenge the Member for North

Okanagan to prove to me where there was a meeting in my riding

with 800 people in attendance in regard to this programme.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I understood that there were about 70 or 80.

That's a long way from 800 people.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: This is the type of thing. They feel that they

can go around this province and spread muck and guck and get

away with it. Well, they can't. They can't do it.

I spent five days in my riding....

MR. BENNETT: Is that all?

MR. LEWIS: The response I got from my riding was...

MRS. JORDAN: Why weren't you in the House?

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: ...that the opposition is negative; they're

irresponsible. "We don't want them even if they get together.

We don't want them if they get together and we don't want them

separate." You go back out and take a reading, my friends; go

back and take a reading. They're fed up with your talk about

everybody packing six-guns in this province, about the Minister

of Education bringing in programmes to....

MR. PHILLIPS: You won't be back.

MR. LEWIS: I'll be back, my friend. I'll be back, my

friend.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to

the Chair and to the amendment, please?

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually like that

Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips), but I wish that he would

get back on the ground and deal with things factually. If he

thinks that the people are fed up with this Minister of

Education, he's got another thought coming.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know it. I don't think it; I know it.

[ Page 1867 ]

MR. LEWIS: The past Minister of Education was called

Brothers. It should have been "Smothers Brothers" because he

smothered every bit of education in this province. (Laughter.)

This Minister is going a fine job in correcting many of the

things that you did: the lack of school rooms, the lack of

gyms, no kindergartens; the list goes on and on. Special

programmes in the schools....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I'd like to take a minute and hang my head in

shame for you. (Laughter.) I would hope that you will repent,

or you never will become a government again in this

province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's defence over

there is really defensive tonight. The Member who just took his

place talked about muck and guck. I can recall a sad time in

this House when they had Cocke and Foulkes, another vaudeville

team.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister as much as admitted that she knew

nothing about this book, "A Professional Guide to Alcohol and

Drug Information." I'd like to ask her if she could tell this

House whether or not she knows about some of the other

programmes that the Alcohol and Drug Commission is carrying on

under the heading of school programmes. Maybe there are more

things we should know about — that the Minister should know

about. I'd like to repeat my offer, Madam Minister. If you

don't have this, I'll lend it to you overnight, because I know

it's very important that you read it quickly before it gets too

far.

The following developments have taken place, according to

the second report of the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission. A

professional kit has been developed — that's this infamous

bunch of garbage — to provide up-to-date, accurate information

about alcohol, drugs and related issues to teachers and

counsellors. Well, this up-to-date information happens to be

several years old and is hardly up-to-date.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like the Gestapo.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it has everything to do with the....

It is the Stein report.

The second thing the report tells us about is that the person responsible for

schools, occasionally with other staff members, has initiated and/or participated

in seminars and workshops for counsellors and teachers. Does the Minister know

about these seminars and workshops that are going on apparently in the schools

right now? The Minister indicated that this kit is not yet required subject

matter for the counsellors. But the report tells us that these seminars and

workshops are going on right now. Are they using materials such as are in this

kit to conduct those seminars and workshops? Are they, in fact, going into our

schools?

Is Peter Stein sending people into our schools to promote

drug use, marijuana use? That's what it would seem like. No

wonder the morale is so low in our schools. No wonder there is

a non-confidence motion against this Minister.

The person from the Alcohol and Drug Commission is

apparently going into our schools, providing information on

chemical dependency and counselling techniques, telling our

teachers how to counsel young people in the use of drugs, as

well as covering broader issues such as family life. Is it the

responsibility, Mr. Chairman, of the members of the Alcohol and

Drug Commission to impose those family life programmes that

that Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was just talking about?

Does the Member for Shuswap know that those family life

programmes are being initiated in the schools by people from

the Alcohol and Drug Commission who are soft on drugs. Does he

know that?

Mr. Chairman, it says in this report that those family life

programmes are being discussed by members of the Alcohol and

Drug Commission; also life skills programmes in Burnaby, North

Vancouver, West Vancouver, Kelowna, Kamloops and Victoria. Now

what could be clearer than that? Is that the responsibility of

a group of people who are soft on drugs? Not on your life!

"Staff members of the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission have

made numerous presentations and held seminars on drugs, alcohol

and related issues for various parent groups." Does the

Minister approve those courses and seminars, or does she even

know about them? I'll bet she's never even heard about them

until I mentioned them tonight.

A learning-by-doing course for elementary school children...

MRS. JORDAN: Right on!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...involving training in the use of the

scientific method of pharmacological concepts, together with

the development of human relation skills in conjunction with

the authors, Dr. Belword and Mrs. Bethel, has been

established."

Members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission are going into

the elementary schools. Are they taking this professional kit

with them and spreading the kind of garbage that is in this

kit? Does the Minister know what they are doing in the

elementary schools?

Mr. Chairman, I'll bet she hasn't a clue what they are doing

in the elementary schools either. It is in the report.

"A 35-page parent study group manual has been printed and is

being provided free of charge to interested parent groups

around the province. Liaison

[ Page 1868 ]

with the local health units and school districts has been

established in the area of family life education in Courtenay."

At least in one part of British Columbia, apparently, they've

gone to the school trustees. But they certainly haven't gone to

the school trustees anywhere else in B.C. It doesn't say

whether the people in Courtenay kicked them out or not. I hope

they did.

"The staff members are involved in ongoing evaluation of

available curricula, programmes and other resources in the area

of drug education."

Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister knows it or not, this

group of people are infiltrating the schools of this province

and they are directly taking

part in the curriculum development

of the schools of this province. It is time that Minister found

out what is going on. If she doesn't if she isn't instrumental

in convincing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

to fire Peter Stein and his pitiful little group, then she has

a lot of shame to rest on her shoulders, and it is....

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is a non-confidence

motion over this Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the Hon. Member appreciates the

fact that it is improper, during estimates, to ask one Minister

to advise another Minister about anything. In each situation

you should question the Minister in turn.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.