1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, MAY 11, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

1605 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1605

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1605

Mr. Lauk — 1610

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1612

Ms. Brown — 1613

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1616

Mr. Gibson — 1618

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1618

Mr. Lea — 1618

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1619

Ms. Sanford — 1620

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1620

Mrs. Dailly — 1622

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1622

Ms. Brown — 1623

Mr. Cocke — 1624

Mr. Nicolson — 1625

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1627

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39: minister's office, $126, 940 — continued.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, when the

House adjourned we had not yet heard from the Minister of Education,

and a number of questions were posed to him, not only by myself but

also by the hon. Liberal member and the Conservative member. I wonder

if the minister is now ready to answer some of those specific questions.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): The next leader — watch your back. (Laughter.)

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

would like to commence by introducing some of the officials from the

department. Here next to me is Dr. Walter Hardwick, our very able

Deputy Minister of Education. I believe that the last time I was

complimented for anything, it was on his appointment.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: In the background there are Mr. John Currie,

the departmental comptroller, and Mr. Joe Phillipson, the Associate

Deputy Minister for our K-to-12 programme. Other officials of the

department will, from time to time, be appearing on the floor and I'll

introduce them as they come to the floor of the House. I want to extend

the welcome of the department to all members of the House to the senior

officials of the department at any time to get any information that

they would wish.

Now a number of questions were posed by the senior spokesman for the

opposition, and I would just like to answer the questions that were

raised.

First of all, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked about the assessment

programme that's going on in the Department of Education. It's not something

that commenced with the new government; it commenced with the former government

and the former minister, and we are very proud of that programme; we think it's

an important and effective one. It's going to continue and be expanded with

the full support of the new government.

She asked a specific question: what will we do with information that

is developed? It's the intention, Madam Member, that the results will

be published on a province-wide basis and, naturally, they'll be made

available to the school trustees and to the BCTF. On a confidential

basis, the results will be supplied to each of the school districts,

and there isn't any intention at all that this programme will be used

in any way to undermine the activities that are going on in individual

schools and in individual districts.

The intention, I think, as everybody realizes, is to determine

whether or not skills are being developed in our youngsters as they go

along. But above and beyond that, the department is encouraging school

districts, individual schools and individual teachers in schools to do

their own testing to determine how the youngsters in their classes, in

their schools and in their districts are doing, relative to North

America and province-wide norms. We're not attempting to force anybody

to undertake this kind of individual testing.

The B.C. Teachers Federation itself, when they did a public survey

of the desires of parents in British Columbia, came back with a strong

wish on the part of parents of this province to have testing in the

schools so they would know, and the students would know, exactly how

they were managing in the area of general knowledge. So we support

individual school districts in carrying out that policy. Again, Madam

Member, we are not forcing that from the Department of Education.

There was a question raised about corporal punishment in the

schools. I think I've explained several times that that's not a

priority of the department.

With regard to the restructure of the secondary school programme:

the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) was at the convention of

the B.C. school trustees when I said that we were taking a look at how

we could get better articulation between the secondary school programme

and the post-secondary school programme. Nothing was said, there or

subsequently, about people leaving school at grade 10. It only takes

one unfortunate story in the press to create a myth that you then

cannot run down; you cannot dissociate yourself with that often enough.

MR. LAUK: You've noticed!

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right, and I sympathize. I know that

former ministers have had precisely that problem. What I want to do is

assure the member and the House that nothing of that kind was said or

contemplated.

Now what we are attempting to do, Madam Member, is develop a better

articulation between what is going on in the secondary school system and

[ Page 1606 ]

the post-secondary school system, with a view to

students being able to get on with the kinds of programmes they

themselves want and need and with a minimum of artificial hurdles

placed in their way. We feel the consequence of that will be to develop

retention in the system so that people, out of discouragement at not

being able to get into the programme they want by the end of grade 10,

might drop out, to their regret and our regret.

We definitely believe, obviously, in recurrent education — that's

the new "in" word, for the members of the House, for people leaving

their educational development at some propitious stage and then later

on going back for further education. As a former Minister of Education

in a former government did, I speak of the hon. Wesley Black who, after

he left politics, took a course in public administration, and now has a

Masters degree in that. That's recurrent education. So, of course,

Madam Member, we strongly support that kind of thing.

We are in consultation with the Department of Education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, it's possible, Mr. Chairman, that even

the member for North Vancouve–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) might eventually

take advantage of the opportunities in our educational system. They

used to say that you could always tell a Harvard man, but you couldn't

tell him much. (Laughter.)

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): He could go back for a course in humility.

HON. MR. McGEER: Anyway, without dwelling further on our

ambitions for that hon. member and for everybody in British Columbia, I

want to tell the member who raised this question that we are indeed in

consultation with the Department of Labour. It's our intention to send

out to any educational institution in British Columbia a letter asking

those institutions to identify for us programmes, which we may not yet

be aware of, where there is a demand for the graduates, where there's a

waiting list to get into the programme and where the neck of the

bottle, if you like, is the size of that particular programme and which

is limiting job opportunities, and where students are being held up in

the educational process because they can't get into the programme.

Medicine is one obvious example, but one could list many others. We're

going to give priority to those programmes because it makes good

educational sense and it makes good economic and social sense.

Obviously, much has been said about educational finance. That

becomes a topic of considerable debate every year in this House. I can

only tell the House that the Minister of Education does not have total

command of the provincial budget. The Minister of Education, as the

former minister knows, always attempts to get as much....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: What was that, Mr. Member?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Thank heavens! You have practically broke everybody in B.C. already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: We'll come to that if you wish to raise the

subject. We'll have discussion on that. But, I can only say to the

member that many taxes were increased in this past year. We weren't the

architects of the shortfall of funds which we inherited when we came to

office. We had to deal with it, including the past debt of ICBC of $185

million. That's going to be paid out of current taxes, and education

will be among the services to people that will be partially deprived as

a consequence of the policies of the former government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I say shame, yes. It is a shame. Property

taxes did increase to help pay for education — that's true, Mr.

Chairman. But I think the member and the House should realize that

across the province this year the average increase in mill rate for

school tax purposes was 5.55 mills. The year before....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's shocking — but Madam Member, you didn't

say shocking last year when, as a result of the financial policies of

your government, the increase was 6.92 mills. When did the property

taxes increase most? This year, under the new government? No — last

year under the NDP, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MS. BROWN: Smear! Smear!

HON. MR. McGEER: The member raised some questions about the special warrants in the Department of Education...

AN HON. MEMBER: Smeared! Smeared with the truth!

[ Page 1607 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: ...and the Clarkson Gordon report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's listen to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

HON. MR. McGEER: Now when the Clarkson Gordon report was

prepared, the increases in estimated expenditures for education were

for the following purposes. They were statutory items of $2.2 million,

which was the teachers' pension fund; $2.679 million, which was the

reserve for the teachers' pension fund; there was a night school grant

and training programme of $300,000, which is partially recoverable from

the federal government; and the post-secondary educational training for

vocational programmes of $3.855 million. Now it was the sum of these

warrants that went into the Clarkson Gordon report.

Now there will be, as you say, some underexpenditures in the

Department of Education, and those will be rationalized when you come

to final public accounts, because we don't yet know what the

underexpenditures are. But those will ultimately appear in public

accounts, which hopefully this year will be out sooner than they were

last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: The exact figures will be available then.

MR. COCKE: Have you any good reason to think that they will?

HON. MR. McGEER: That what will, Mr. Member?

MR. COCKE: I just said: have you any good reason to think that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. McGEER: An excellent reason: a more competent Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe).

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt just long enough to remind the members...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you just long enough to remind

the members that Hansard has no way of recording questions and, as a

result, answers given make no sense at all without the questions. Let's

follow the standing order which says if you wish to speak, please stand

and be recognized so that Hansard has the record.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just for the record of Hansard , Mr.

Chairman, the question from the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

was: "Did we have any reason to believe that public accounts would be

out sooner this year?" The answer was: "Yes, because we had a more

competent Minister of Finance."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: I wouldn't want Hansard to miss that point. (Laughter.)

Now, Madam Member, not included in the figures for Clarkson Gordon

was the $7.5 million warrant for the universities. We've gone into this

before and I'd be happy to go into it again because I think there is a

very fundamental point involved here and it's a difference in

philosophy between your government and this government.

We have indicated to the universities of this province that they may

spend, with whatever agreements they work out during this fiscal year,

the amount of money that we have made available in our budget, but they

may not commit legally the universities to expenditures in next year's

budget. The reason is that we cannot have people, whether they're on

boards of educational institutions or anywhere else, bargaining on

behalf of the treasury for next year.

What happened, Mr. Chairman, under the former NDP was that with

their policy of unionization at the universities — that's fine; they

can have that policy — many agreements were signed which committed the

government to increases in the budget in ensuing years. The first thing

that I had to review, as the Minister of Education, was a request from

the universities council for increases in their budget because of legal

commitments that they had undertaken during bargaining sessions in that

fiscal year.

What we said was, "All right, we will meet those legal commitments,"

and in our view that was a charge on last year's Education budget. Now

you may take a different view of that if you wish, but the point that I

want to try to make to you, and to all the House now, is that we do not

expect people in the educational system, or anywhere else, to be

bargaining for next year's taxes. That's the prerogative of elected

officials in government. They can go ahead and bargain all they like

for increases this year, providing they can show that all those legal

commitments they undertake are within the amount of money that the

treasury has made available to them. But that was something that was

undertaken after the Clarkson Gordon study had been instituted

[ Page 1608 ]

and which is a policy of the Department of Education at the present time.

Now dealing with the matters raised by the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), he asked about family life. I'm a

little reminded, Mr. Chairman, of the story about the senator who was

coming back to his constituency. He found that half of his supporters

were in favour of the nomination of one candidate for a member of

parliament and half were in favour of another candidate for a member of

parliament. He said: "Some of my friends are supporting Smith and some

of my friends are supporting Jones. I want everybody to know that I am

supporting my friends." (Laughter.) I want everybody to know that

family life is not part of the core curriculum of the Department of

education. Family life is an optional programme that can be undertaken

at an individual school district if they feel that this is part of the

additional programme they would like to offer.

We're quite prepared to consider the submissions that are made to

the Department of Education about this controversial and optional

programme. Just today we had a suggestion from the Home and School

Federation that we should appoint a co-ordinator for programmes to look

into family life and other controversial optional programmes, and we're

going to study that particular suggestion. But I think that when one is

considering the introduction of a programme in a school district, even

if that programme is at a local option, the local group that is

sponsoring and introducing it should consider very carefully the

sensitivities of the people within that school district. They should

have a very strong consensus, in my view, in favour of any optional

programme they introduce. If a programme which is not strongly

supported at the local level is nevertheless pushed at the local level,

then, of course, you're going to have dissension. This has been the

history of family life.

The minister asked about the educational finance formula.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member. The member asked the minister.

MR. WALLACE: I just wondered which minister you were referring to. This minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: He's got plans for himself.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't know Gordon had become a minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Our plans for the member differ somewhat. But anyway, the member asked about the educational finance formula.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: No threats. We didn't specify; we left it to the member's fertile imagination. He

asked, Mr. Chairman, about the school finance formula. Of course, Mr.

Chairman, the member represents a district that has a highly enriched

programme. He should be very proud of that programme and the district

should be very proud of the programme. The whole area, Mr. Chairman, of

school districts being able to set their own budget and determine their

own mill rates is that they would have the option of enriching the

programmes to any degree that they wish — there are no limits on that

at all. But, Mr. Member, don't expect the government to pay for that

enrichment. I think that we should make it very clear that this is a

local option: enrich as much as you like, but after you have enriched,

don't come and ask for special consideration from the Department of

Education because you have done so. We'll tell you, Mr. Member, that

we're very proud of the fact that your school district, at its option,

has enriched its programmes.

MR. GIBSON: But you're only paying 41 per cent of the basic, let alone the enrichment.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, your plea, as I

interpreted it, was for special consideration for your school district

because of the high cost of your programme. All I'm saying is that if a

programme is enriched in a local school district, we're very proud that

they've done it, but we don't feel obligated to support it. Our

responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is to support a sound, basic education

programme distributed without favour all across the province, and

that's what we're doing.

MR. GIBSON: We've got a 56 point mill rate.

HON. MR. McGEER: I quite understand that. Mr. Member, I think

I explained to your school board...and I'd be happy to explain to you

or to have you and the school board in together to indicate why it's

that high. They have the highest administration costs of any school

district in the province and lowest pupil-teacher ratio. These things

do add up at the local mill rate. The school trustees understand that,

or they should understand that. They can go to their local taxpayers

and ask for support at that level. If the local taxpayers give them

that support then they deserve to have it. But don't ask the property

owners from Delta or the general taxpayers of all of the province to

support that — that's the local responsibility.

I told them that, Mr. Member. We'd be happy to

[ Page 1609 ]

have all of the resources of the department made available to them

if they should wish us to suggest ways that they could spend the

education dollar more effectively. But we certainly won't interfere in

any way with their option to enrich the programme to whatever degree

they consider appropriate for North Vancouver.

Now there was a question asked about the appointment of school

superintendents and, as you know, some are supported by the local

school districts, some are supported by the Department of Education. I

think it only worth observing, Mr. Chairman, that where the Department

of Education supports the school superintendent the salaries tend to be

anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000 more than if they're supported by the

local school districts. But again, that's the local school district's

option if they choose to follow it.

MR. GIBSON: That's not their option.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: We're just trying to enlighten the minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: We understand that. We're not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if you have something you wish to

contribute to the debate there will be plenty of time when you stand

and are recognized.

HON. MR. McGEER: Now there was a question about independent

schools. I want to indicate to the member, Mr. Chairman, that we would

be very pleased to have the support of that member and all the members

of the House for support of independent schools when legislation is

brought forward. The legislation will not be introduced at this session

simply because we don't have a budget this year for the independent

schools. We hope that the economic climate of British Columbia under a

strong free enterprise Social Credit government will have improved next

year to the point where we can support independent schools. Of course,

under socialism it would be difficult to find the funds for those

activities, desirable as they may be. I certainly support everything

that the member said about the desirability of support for independent

schools, and that's why this government is going to do it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Next year? The year after?

HON. MR. McGEER: Probably next year. But it depends again on the performance of the economy.

Now the member, Mr. Chairman, raised a plea for the exemption of

teachers from the national guidelines, a plea that I might say was made

far more eloquently on three occasions by the teachers themselves than

by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). Nevertheless,

the point has been made. We understood it well, but, Mr. Chairman, it's

the view of the government that in a time of national restraint when

there are national guidelines there should be no exceptions. Everybody

should be included in the programme. That's why, eloquent as the

teachers federation presentation was — and it was well done; they made

their point of view strongly and advanced every argument that I think

could have been advanced in their favour — it's nevertheless the view

of the government, and I think that view would be strongly supported by

the public at large, that there should be no exceptions. Now in the

case of the teachers....

MR. LAUK: What about the Public Schools Act?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm pointing out — and I guess the member

hasn't yet grasped, Mr. Chairman — the significance of the national

programme announced by Prime Minister Trudeau last October. It was to

be national in scope. It was to include everybody with no exceptions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Wonderful, but I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that obviously a national programme the Minister of Education....

MR. CHAIRMAN: , Order, please! Could we have a lower level of

noise, please, in the House? There's no way that hon. members who wish

to hear what is being said are able to hear. A lower level of noise,

please,

HON. MR. McGEER: I was just trying to get across to the

member the significance of the national programme, Mr. Chairman, and I

hope that he grasps that and that he'll support it, being a good

Liberal.

MR. WALLACE: How about yourself?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order is right!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education has the floor.

[ Page 1610 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Chairman, why the Tories are getting nowhere?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned there

were only two minutes left. Since the minister is answering questions

from three separate speakers, I wonder if we might have leave of the

House for him to continue until he's completed....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be ample time. The minister has the floor for one more minute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chabot is in his usual good humour.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll carry on if it is the wish of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: I just wanted to dwell on that particular point until we got it across.

Mr. Chairman, there was a question asked as to whether we supported

parent involvement. I would say absolutely, and that's why the

department spent such a long time today with the Home and School

Federation. We do strongly support the idea of the parents expressing

to us, to the Teachers Federation and to the School Trustees

Association their expectations of what the Department of Education and

what the individual schools should be doing in the province. I can tell

you, we're going to respond to their wishes.

A question was asked about Jericho Hill School. Now what the

department wishes to do with regard to the communicatively impaired is

to support their education through special grants in their individual

school districts. I think the reason is a very obvious one, and it's

one that the member apparently hasn't quite grasped — that is that the

communicatively impaired youngster, after the school programme has

finished, is going to have to perform in a community where the majority

of people are not hard of hearing and do not have limited vision.

If you institutionalize them, as was done for so many years in

British Columbia, then what you do is take them away from their homes,

take them away from their parents, put them into one centralized

institution where they see other people all the time who are as

impaired as they are impaired, and afterwards try and return them to a

community where they are not in such an atmosphere. It doesn't work

nearly as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Time? Well, I'll deal with answers to some of the other questions later.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have a short point to make with the

minister. The point involves a serious matter, and I hesitate to

describe it as a charge, but it does....

MR. WALLACE: Go ahead anyway.

MR. LAUK: When I outline the details of the matter, Mr.

Chairman, it will require, I'm sure, a very sensitive and, I hope,

responsible answer on the part of the minister. I'm asking you, Mr.

Chairman, to bear with me as I give some of the background of this

situation that has something directly to do with an administrative

decision made by the minister himself.

It involves really, a discussion of a history of the Chinese people

in Canada and, in particular, Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. I

recall my great-grandfather in the 19th century was — and I'm one of

the few that can use this expression without indictment — a Polack

working on the railroad, and who described to my father and his

children the relationship that these workers had with one another and

with Chinese labourers who were imported — and I suppose that one could

not put it any more politely than that — to work on the national

railway. There was a great loss of life, as history points out to us;

there was hardship and there was struggle.

There was some suggestion that after the railway was built these

Chinese people would be returned to their country of origin, as they

may not easily assimilate into Canadian society. But we saw that a

great number of them chose this country as their adopted land. They

settled in areas of British Columbia and across Canada — but a great

many of them in British Columbia.

For years in the city of Vancouver, and indeed in all of Canada, but

in the city of Vancouver — as it was pointed out to many of us who are

citizens of that city, and who do remember some of its history — the

Chinese citizens were excluded from public parks. I'm sure the hon.

Minister of Education can recall the signs that used to appear — and

certainly are in the Vancouver City Archives — saying: "No Dogs and No

Chinamen Allowed in This Park." I'm sure he can recall, as well as I,

that the orientals did not have a vote in this country. I'm sure he can

recall, as well as I, the old Liberal advertisement in 1937 which

stated that a vote for the Liberals will keep the Yellow Peril out of

Canada.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): That's a Barrett speech you're using.

[ Page 1611 ]

MR. LAUK: Throughout the many years, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I'm waiting to hear the

relationship of these remarks to the vote, which is the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Education.

MR. LAUK: I'm getting to that point, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping you would bear with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm waiting very patiently.

MR. LAUK: The contribution of the Chinese community, of the

Chinese people, to Canadian life has been substantial. In particular,

once again, its social and cultural contribution and contribution to

the business life of Vancouver and B.C. has been substantial.

Since the war, as the Minister of Education well knows, great

strides have been made by all levels of government and by all ethnic

communities in our society to live in greater harmony with Chinese

fellow citizens. They now have the vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LAUK: They're now more actively involved in business life. They're now contributing to our social and cultural life.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are now directly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member....

MR. LAUK ; Mr. Chairman, if you would show as much impatience with some

of the members on the opposite side as you're showing to me tonight, it

would be a little bit more beneficial. I'm taking a few minutes of time

to give a background situation involving a very serious matter.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: It's obvious that the members on the opposite side

of the House are a little disturbed with the matter I'm about to bring

forward.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair is only requiring that you relate your remarks to the vote, according to the standing orders.

MR. LAUK: I'm about to. These delays are delaying my opportunity to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that we've been more than patient and I ask you to relate your remarks to the vote.

MR. LAUK: I'm about to do so, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Why are they so nervous, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LAUK: We felt in the NDP administration that we would not

only continue the process of living in harmony with other communities —

and this is directly involved in education — but we hoped to accelerate

it. One of the things that happened was the appointment of Mr. Randall

Wong to the position of provincial court judge — a first-class lawyer

with a second-to-none reputation.

Another young man was appointed to the board of governors at the University

of British Columbia: a hard-working student, a devoted individual, an excellent

architectural student, devoted to his family, his community, to his people —

the Canadian people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. I must ask you now

to proceed to remarks that are related to vote 39. We fail to see how

this is related.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret the response that is

being made on the other side of the House. I feel that it is one of the

disadvantages of a lengthy supper adjournment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MS. BROWN: It is shocking!

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, here was a young man who was, as I

say, a hard-working student. He worked his way through university. He

was a man recognized as completely devoted to the community of

Vancouver at large — not only the Chinese community — who was appointed

by the NDP administration as a member of the board of governors at the

University of British Columbia, by the former Minister of Education. He

is a man who is known throughout his community as being sensitive to

academic, cultural and social needs. He was a great asset to the board.

He was the first Chinese person ever appointed to the board.

HON. MR. MAIR: What's that got to do with it?

[ Page 1612 ]

MS. BROWN: Everything.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Members. The speaker is just relating his remarks to matters educational. Let him continue.

MR. LAUK: The student population of the University of British

Columbia, I think, is in excess of 12 or 13 per cent Chinese, although

on my inquiries, Mr. Chairman, no exact figure was ascertained. When

the new-coalition, ex-Liberal minister was appointed to his present

post, he summarily dismissed Mr. Byng Thom, the member that I'm talking

about, without any notice and without any reason — without any reason

whatsoever.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

MR. LAUK: I couldn't believe it when I read it in the

newspaper, because I know the minister to be an honourable man. I said

to myself: was this a malicious move? A vindictive move? I said it

couldn't be. There must be some other reason for this

summary dismissal

of this individual. I asked myself: was he attending board meetings? I

checked; he attended them all. I'm told by some of his fellow governors

that he contributed greatly to their deliberations and was highly

regarded by them.

The senate of the University of British Columbia voted to condemn

the action of the minister. It is the first time in the history of the

senate of that university that such an action has taken place — a

resolution of condemnation of a Minister of Education.

MR. GIBSON: That's right — and richly earned, too.

MS. BROWN: Shocking!

MR. LAUK ; Once again a very important ethnic group, a Canadian ethnic

group is excluded from the mainstream of society and from representation on

another board. I consider the actions, without further explanation of the minister,

to be totally and completely reprehensible, and I call upon him tonight, Mr.

Chairman, to reinstate Mr. Thom to that board of governors.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think there was a note of racism in the member's remarks.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I want to tell you that it doesn't matter

what the office is in British Columbia, the appointment to that office

should not be on the basis of being Chinese, Indian, Negro, or any

other race. It should be on the basis of merit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: When we begin appointing people solely on

the basis of their race and expect them to retain office solely on that

basis, then what we are doing is we are abandoning the merit system or

criteria that a government feels would be appropriate for any office at

all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McGEER: You have to understand that what you're arguing for, Mr. Member, is racism in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. McGEER: We made it very clear, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we made it very clear....

MR. LAUK: A point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre. Your point of order, sir?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I confess that I don't understand why

the minister would refer to me as a racist or impute that I would be a

racist. I find that offensive and I ask him to withdraw that allegation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I said his remarks were.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister referred to the member as a racist, would you kindly withdraw that?

HON. MR. McGEER: I didn't say that. I said his remarks were, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister says that your remarks were racist. He did not impute any improper motive to the member directly.

[ Page 1613 ]

MR. LAUK: It's clear to any schoolboy that they were not. I

ask him to withdraw the imputation that I was a racist or that I would

make racist remarks. I find those offensive and unparliamentary.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the same point of order?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it to the member to

make his own

interpretation, and for each member to make their

interpretation of his remarks. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it

very clear that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the point of order, if any improper motive was imputed, would you please withdraw?

HON. MR. McGEER: What do you consider to be an improper motive?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not for me to decide. If an improper motive was....

HON. MR. McGEER: Let me put it this way, Mr. Chairman: if the

member considers that I have imputed an improper motive to his remarks,

then I withdraw his

interpretation of my remarks. (Laughter.)

But, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, Mr. Minister, may I ask you that in the

interest of orderly conduct of business in this House, not only tonight

but in future days, let us not get into splitting hairs. Would you just

kindly withdraw any imputation of an improper motive? Then there'll be

no problem.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you so much. Please continue.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we indicated at the very beginning what

our criteria were for appointments to the boards of governors of educational

institutions. These were three, and they are very simple. They stood then and

they stand now. It has nothing to do, Mr. Chairman, with political affiliation

and, above all, it has nothing to do with race. The criteria are these: achievement

in one's own field of endeavour; knowledge of and interest in education;

and a sense of fiscal responsibility. These are the three criteria, and I want

to tell the member, and all members of the House, that we would be delighted

to consider for appointment to boards of governors anybody whom they would care

to recommend who fulfils these criteria.

I want to say that we don't feel any obligation to retain a person

on a board of governors of any educational institution because they

represent labour, because they represent management, because they are

Negro or Chinese or any race,

MR. LAUK: Why was he fired?

HON. MR. McGEER: What we intend to do is to upgrade wherever

we can the people who are on the boards of these institutions, and

whether you appointed them or whether we appointed them, if we feel

that we can improve those institutions by changing the people who are

the government representatives, we are prepared to do so. That's the

only way that you can get excellence on any board of governors: be

prepared always to get better people if you can possibly get them.

MR. LAUK: Why was he fired?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's telling you!

HON. MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say again that

no one who has a position on a board can consider that as a sinecure.

They were appointed because of these three criteria; they will be

retained because of performance. Mr. Chairman, we are grateful to all

the people who serve on the boards of these institutions. I think it's

too bad that the member had to introduce this particular note into

something which should be non-political, which had only excellence as

its motive, and which should be beyond politics and, above all, Mr.

Chairman, beyond any tinge of racism.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to see that this

discussion is out in the open once and for all at this time. By the

minister's own statement, Mr. Byng Thom met all of his three criteria.

There is no question that the man was an architect beyond compare. We

are very proud of the kind of things that Byng Thom has designed in

this province, including the B.C. Electric building, which is now the

B.C. Hydro building. There is no question that he was a student of

great merit. There can be no question at all about his academic

criterion nor can there be any question about his fiscal responsibility.

The member for Vancouver Centre placed in historical perspective

something which has been in the shadow of this province for a very long

time because the fact remains that despite the fact that the history of

British Columbia is that it was one of the

[ Page 1614 ]

stops on the underground railroad, one of the places where slaves

could find security when they left the United States, the history of

the treatment of Orientals and East Indians and Japanese and other

people has left absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that visible and

invisible barriers have always existed to various racial and ethnic

minority groups.

What is the criterion that was used to remove Mr. Byng Thom from the

board? He attended all the meetings. You said that political

affiliation did not enter into it. By your very own statement, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you said that if people were

appointed to the board on the basis of their race or sex, that would be

a racist act. That was your very own statement. In fact, there is no

question that people of many races and many cultures have contributed

to the development of this province, and by your very act you have

failed to recognize this.

The very first thing that you did when you assumed the

responsibility for the portfolio of the Department of Education was to

remove from the board, not just of UBC but from some of the community

colleges as well, not just Mr. Byng Thom, but a woman who was of Indian

heritage. What are you trying to do to this province? The member for

Comox will deal with this. I think her name was Mrs. Rene Taylor. She

will deal with this in more detail.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mrs. Rene Taylor, Alert Bay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, that this province is not inhabited merely by male

Anglo-Saxons. The Minister of Education has failed to take note of that

and whether he cares to admit it publicly or not, consciously or

unconsciously, he had no justification for removing Mr. Byng Thom from

the board of the University of British Columbia, and, consciously or

unconsciously, his act was racist, and there was no question about that.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Withdraw!

MS. BROWN: I will not withdraw that statement. I will not

withdraw that statement unless the Minister of Education can prove to

me that Mr. Byng Thom did not meet his three criteria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MS. BROWN: It is interesting how uncomfortable, how

uncomfortable that total male mass over there gets whenever one starts

to talk about....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not superior. I know what it is like to live

in this province, Mr. Member, as you do, too. And unless that minister

can prove to this House that Mr. Byng Thom did not meet the three

criteria, and unless he did not meet the three criteria, then there is

no question that his act was one of pure, simple and unadulterated

racism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MS. BROWN: And I will not withdraw that statement. I will not withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. I must ask the member: are you imputing any improper motive to the minister?

MS.'BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have made my position absolutely clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just asked a question,

MS. BROWN: I am quite prepared to listen to the minister explain to this House...

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: ...if I can proceed without interruptions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. I am listening.

MS. BROWN: If the minister can explain to this House which of

the three criteria Mr. Byng Thom failed to meet, I would be very happy

to withdraw, but unless the minister can do that he will have to

justify his statement.

It makes me very sad, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, to make that kind

of accusation, because I have great admiration for that minister, as he

knows, but it leaves me no option but to conclude that the decision

made, consciously or unconsciously.... I'm quite prepared to accept

that a lot of the racism in this province is unconscious — that with

the best intentions in the world the acts are unconscious — but I would

appreciate if the Minister of Education would explain to this House

which of the three criteria laid down by him Mr. Byng Thom failed to

meet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Madam Member, I must, as

Chairman of this House, obtain to the standing orders. There's no way

that we can allow the imputation of improper motive to another hon.

member. I must ask you to withdraw unconditionally the imputation of

any improper motive.

[ Page 1615 ]

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I think that the member's remarks categorized the

policy as racist. The policy can be, and I don't think that necessarily

imputes racist attitudes to a particular member of this House. It is

customary in this Legislature, as in others, to categorize policy and

government initiatives in a way that would not be allowed if

attributing those things to a personal member of the House. I don't

think it calls for a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, Hon. Leader of the

Opposition, but I must ask the member if any imputation was directed

towards the minister. If it was, I must ask her to withdraw. I just ask

you to clarify.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I accept that you must do as you must do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must do, in the interests of orderly conduct.

MS. BROWN: Yes, and I would appreciate it if you would accept that I must be what I must be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Madam.

MS. BROWN: I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that I am willing to

listen to an explanation from the minister as to which of the three

criteria Mr. Byng Thom failed to meet. The minister made it quite clear

that his act was not a political act; therefore Mr. Byng Thom was not

removed from the board because of any political affiliation.

My argument is that Mr. Byng Thom met those three criteria. If there

is one instance in which Mr. Byng Thom did not meet the criteria, it

would be that he is not Caucasian. I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman,

if you would respect the fact that I am asking the minister to clarify

his action. After he has done so, then the decision will be made on my

part as to whether to withdraw, and an apology would be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, my overriding responsibility, as

Chairman of this House, is to obtain to the standing orders. I must ask

you: did you or did you not impute any improper motive to the minister

in your remarks?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I imputed that the act of firing Mr.

Byng Thom was improper if Mr. Byng Thom met all of the three criteria

laid down by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you impute any improper motive?

MS. BROWN: The act of firing Mr. Byng Thom if Mr. Byng Thom met the three criteria laid down by the minister, was an improper act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand all of those and they are all

conditions of what I am asking you to do. I am asking whether or not

improper motive was imputed. If improper motive was imputed, then I

must ask you to withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, would you accept that I have no idea of what the motives of the hon. minister were?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore you can't impute improper motives.

MS. BROWN: I only know what the act was. I have no idea what the motives were.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Therefore you cannot impute that they were improper.

MS. BROWN: I will be guided by you in this, Mr. Chairman,

because you're obviously much more experienced at imputing motives than

I am. I have no idea what his motives were; I only know what his act

was. If Mr. Byng Thom was removed from the board, despite the fact that

he met the three criteria laid down by the minister, then it was an

improper act, regardless of what the motive may have been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I ask you again: did you impute any improper motive to the minister?

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. first

member for Vancouver-Burrard did mention in her remarks that racism can

either be advertent or inadvertent. She left it open in that area to

indicate that if there is

an act that she may interpret as being

racist, it could be inadvertent, and therefore no motive would be

required. I would suggest that her remarks, of themselves, indicate

that she did not necessarily impute any improper motive to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well taken. I need to hear that from the member. Was any improper motive imputed, Hon. Member?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I am really having difficulty in

getting my position across to you. We seem to be having some real

problems tonight. The act was improper; the motive, consciously or

unconsciously, I would not take any responsibility for. The minister

would have to take responsibility for that.

I have no idea why the minister did what he did,

[ Page 1616 ]

but the act was improper if indeed Mr. Byng Thom did meet the three

criteria laid down by the minister. I have asked the minister to

indicate which of the three criteria Mr. Byng Thom failed to meet. I

would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow the minister to

outline that for the House, because I think it is very important. This

may be — who knows? — a milestone, quite frankly, in the politics of

this province, that for once and for all on the floor of this House we

are openly discussing something which has been under the rug for too

long.

If the minister would be allowed by you to take his place in this

debate and explain his act, I think all of us would be the better for

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Hon. Member, that the same kind of

point of order was raised when the minister was on his feet. In the

interest of orderly conduct, not only for this time but for the days

that lie ahead, the minister was gracious enough to withdraw a remark

which could have been categorized the same as this one. On the basis of

the standing orders we cannot allow this to collapse; therefore, if

improper motive was imputed, then I must ask the member to withdraw. If

no improper motive was imputed, then the member is not required to

withdraw. The whole thing hinges on what your motive was, not his.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, as the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out to me, the minister's motive or my motive

or anyone's motive is not the issue really. The issue is that a

gentleman of great ability and great talent, and who has contributed a

great deal to the community of Vancouver and, indeed, to all of Canada

through his talents, was summarily dismissed from the board of the

University of British Columbia, despite the fact that he met the three

criteria laid down by the hon. Minister of Education. That is the issue

that is being discussed here tonight. Whether my statement imputed a

proper motive or did not impute a proper motive is really quite

incidental, isn't it, to the issue that is being discussed on the floor

at this time?

Now if we get on with the business of examining the reasons for the

dismissal of Mr. Byng Thom and Mrs. Rene Taylor, and the failure of

this minister to recognize that there are other people in this province

aside from Caucasians who have contributed to this province — the

growth and development of this province.... If it is possible for the

minister to recognize that despite its history this province did serve

a service to people of other races in this world, that there are many

cultures and many races living here — that is the issue which we are

discussing on the floor of this House tonight...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. BROWN: ...not my motive or his motive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the issue that is

before the House just now has nothing to do with the debate. The issue

before this House right now is: are we going to uphold the standing

orders of this House, which require that the Chairman cannot allow the

imputing of improper motives from one hon. member to another? Therefore

that is the issue. The minister may well wish to clarify, but that must

be subsequent to the decision before us just now. I ask the hon. member

again: did you impute an improper motive to the minister?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, out of a sense of profound respect

for the democratic process, and this House in particular, I will

withdraw my statement as long as it is quite clearly understood that

the issue, which was raised on the floor of the House tonight, was one

that needed to be aired....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may well be, and I....

MS. BROWN: It was one that needed to be aired...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that more than enough....

MS. BROWN: ...and one which I hope will, once and for all, be settled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That closes the matter.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member

for Vancouver-Burrard that the replacement of people on the boards of

governors of many of these institutions was done simply to find

stronger people — more capable people, in our view — to fill those

positions. Mr. Chairman, it was wrong, in my view, to have appointed

Byng Thom or anyone on the basis of their racial background. It would

have been wrong....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. McGEER: It would have been wrong, Mr. Chairman for

us to retain that person or anyone else on the basis of their racial

background. It only has to do, Mr. Chairman, with who we believe can do

the most effective job for those institutions.

Now the member raised another individual, Rene Taylor, who was an

appointee, as I understand it, to the North Island College. That person

was replaced, when the term expired, by other individuals. I'm told

that we've appointed two native Indians, Mr.

[ Page 1617 ]

Chairman — a Miss Jeffery to Northwest College, and a Miss Leon,

Coqualeetza to Fraser Valley College — but I can assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that these people were appointed without my knowledge of

their racial background, and I can assure you that they were not

appointed to these positions because of their racial background. They

were appointed because they were recommended to us as being strong

individuals to fulfil these appointments.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Who were they recommended by?

HON. MR. McGEER: They were recommended in many ways —

sometimes from the community, sometimes from members of the opposition,

sometimes from the members of the government. I invite you, Mr. Member,

or anybody on the opposition side to recommend people to us as members

for boards of governors of these institutions and we'll very seriously

consider their appointments, but at the same time it was wrong, in my

view, for anyone to harbour an impression that they held a position on

the board of governors of an institution because of their racial

background, their ethnic background, their labour background, or what

have you.

I want to read a letter that I sent in reply to Mr. Jack Munro of

the International Woodworkers of America. He complained very strongly

to me that someone was not re-appointed to the universities council. He

felt justified that such a person should be re-appointed because he was

a representative of labour. Mr. Chairman, we disagree that anybody

should belong as a representative of labour, as a representative of

unions, or as a representative of any ethnic group. They're there to

represent the general interest of education and nothing else.

MR. LAUK: And a lot of industry, too.

HON. MR. McGEER: I wrote to Mr. Munro, and I'd like to read the letter because I think it explains....

MR. LAUK: You're an elitist, and you're going to bring this government down, Pat.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Why don't you just return the files and be quiet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister of Education has the floor, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: It says:

"It is not the policy of the government to appoint individuals

because they represent any special-interest group or segment of society. Rather,

it is to appoint individuals who fill the following qualifications:

"1. achievement in their own field of endeavour, whatever this might be;

"2. knowledge of and interest in education;

"3. a strong sense of fiscal responsibility.

"This latter qualification is particularly important

at the present time when the ability of government to finance

educational and other services to people is hampered by expenditures

which are outstripping the ability of the tax system to support them."

I pointed this out, Madam Member, with respect to our policy with

regard to the universities, because we cannot have the boards of

governors of these institutions bargaining away next year's taxes. We

did give a special warrant to the university to cover legal commitments

that those boards of governors undertook in whatever their wisdom might

have been...

MR. LAUK: Do you realize what you're saying?

HON. MR. McGEER: ...obligating the taxpayers of this province to expenditures going beyond the fiscal year.

MR. LAUK: Would you say that outside the House?

HON. MR. McGEER: We've said that we want these institutions to bargain within the amount of money that we have made available this year.

MR. LAUK: Do you know what you're saying?

HON, MR. McGEER: I want to go on, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the individual about whom the IWA had complained.

"I think it important to stress that he was not

dismissed as suggested in your letter. His term had expired. It is our

intention to rotate individuals who sit on the boards of various

educational institutions in order to present fresh ideas. In unusual

circumstances, we would reappoint people, but only if they made an

outstanding contribution which resulted in pressure from many quarters

that their reappointment take place.

"All order-in-council appointments are during

pleasure. The fact that we are making changes has nothing to do with

politics or the fact that at the present time these individuals were

appointed by a former government.

"I will look forward to receiving your specific

suggestions and will be pleased to discuss them with you. I know you

will understand that I can make no ultimate

[ Page 1618 ]

commitments — appointments are the responsibility of the executive

council."

That letter was written on March 8. I've received no reply and no

suggestions, but I will be happy, Mr. Chairman, to receive from Mr.

Jack Munro, from the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson),

the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), or from any other member,

individuals who might usefully represent the interests of education on

these boards.

But, Mr. Chairman, do not recommend them on the basis of racial

extraction; do not recommend them on the basis of representing labour,

industry or any other special interest groups, because that should not

be the consideration, and it is not one of our criteria.

MR. LAUK: What was wrong with Byng Thom was the question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say very briefly

that I have listened to this debate very carefully since the member for

Vancouver Centre raised the issue in the first instance. The minister

has not in any way informed this House why that particular member of

the board of governors was fired. He just read us a letter at some

length and he lingered, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, over the phrase "a

strong sense of fiscal responsibility."

MR. LAUK: It's libelous; absolutely libelous.

MR. GIBSON: I would ask if the minister's implication was

that that member of the board exercised other than a sense of fiscal

responsibility, and I would ask who controls the finances of the

University of British Columbia. Is the minister suggesting that one

member of the board of governors controls the finances of UBC? Of

course he doesn't. The board as a totality doesn't. The government

does, and the minister knows that. So I question his criteria very much

indeed. I ask him again, or ask him for the first time of my own time

of asking: will he tell this House why he fired that governor?

HON. MR. McGEER: We're attempting to find people in all these

institutions who can strengthen them. In our view, the appointees that

we put on that board had the effect of strengthening the total board of

governors. That's why — not to say, as the member from

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) suggested, that they didn't fulfil the

criteria, but that we could find people that, in our view, would be

more effective. It's that simple.

MR. GIBSON: Just very briefly then, I would ask the minister,

since he suggested that his new appointee strengthened the board, would

he be kind enough to compare for this House the qualifications of the

new member with the one that he dismissed?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Because you can't. That's why you won't.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what we have heard here tonight isn't

a new story with this minister in terms of the appointments and the

firing of people from community colleges and from universities. Almost

immediately upon taking office, the whole group of people who had been

appointed by the previous government were fired from the Northwest

Community College. Some of those people flew from the Queen Charlotte

Islands to the mainland and then drove another 100 miles through snow

to get to the meeting to find it was locked and to hear on the news

that they were fired — another case.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): We used to read yours in the paper.

MR. LEA: Now there are a few people who are quite upset about

this in my community because, when the new appointments were made,

there was not one person from Prince Rupert, one of the largest

communities in the area and also a community that supplies a very major

share of the funds that are collected at the local level. I wrote, by

the way, after hearing from the Prince Rupert Chamber of Commerce, the

Prince Rupert School Board, the Queen Charlotte Islands School Board,

Mr. Ciccone, president of Local 4, Watson Island, the PPWC, from the

Prince Rupert Labour Council, from the city council, and from the

Northwest Community College itself, I wrote a letter to the Hon.

Patrick McGeer, dated March 5, 1976, and I'd like to quote the letter:

"Dear Mr. McGeer:

"As I am sure you are aware, you have not appointed a

government appointee from the city of Prince Rupert to the Northwest

Community College.

"I am assuming that your decision in this matter was

not governed by politics and that you have a reason. But I must say I

have given this matter a great deal of thought and I can think of no

reason that would stand up under examination that would leave Prince

Rupert out.

"I am sure you know that Prince Rupert is one of the

biggest financial contributors to this college and is also one of the

bigger population areas. I strongly protest that no one has been

appointed to the board from Prince Rupert by

[ Page 1619 ]

yourself, and await your explanation with a great deal of interest.

Yours truly...."

Then a letter dated March 24, from the minister to me:

"Dear Mr. Lea:

"I would like to acknowledge your letter of March 5, 1976, concerning appointments to the Northwest Community College council.

"As you are no doubt aware, legislation provides for

each of the participating school districts to appoint a councillor with

the intention of getting full geographic representation and,

secondly, provides for some appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

"It has been my belief that the government appointees

should be selected so as to make sure that the various social, economic

and similar groups are represented and, further, that the individuals

should be chosen on their basis of demonstrated achievement in their

field of endeavour and interest in education and, in these times of

fiscal restraint, concern for sound management of public funds.

"I am sorry that in looking at persons to sit on the

council a person from Prince Rupert was not chosen. As you know, I have

expressed the view that members of college councils should be rotated,

and perhaps next year a resident of Prince Rupert could be recognized

as a representative of one of the social interest groups.

Yours truly,

Patrick L. McGeer."

That letter, I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, tells a different

story than the one we've just heard from the minister who said he would

not, under any circumstances, for the sole reason that people belong to

a social interest group, appoint them to a college. Now we have to

understand, Mr. Chairman, that he did have other criteria: people who

should have good fiscal sense and responsibility, someone who has

demonstrated achievement in the field of their endeavour and in their

education. I should point out that after putting out that criterion, he

says, "I'm sorry, no one from Prince Rupert," because in his opinion,

I would suppose, no one from Prince Rupert could match that criterion.

I suggest to you that it is because NDP won the seat in Prince Rupert,

and that's why they got no one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're right there.

MR. LEA: A pure political reason for no one from Prince

Rupert being appointed to the board. And the other arrogance of the

postscript, written in the minister's own handwriting: "P.S. Send along

your suggestions — Roy Last?" Roy Last was the Social Credit candidate

who ran against me in 1975.

HON. MR. McGEER: Very amusing.

MR. LEA: Very amusing, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr.

Chairman. The reasons he gave are not the reasons that he put in this

letter; he said it could not be political, then he suggests in this

letter that the only person he would accept as my suggestion is the

person who ran for the Social Credit in 1975. That's what it's all

about.

So, if we cannot believe him on that, Mr. Chairman, how can we

believe him on the one about the board of governors from the University

of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't.

MR. LEA: How can he ask us, as opposition, and how can he ask the people in this province, to believe it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't.

MR. LEA: He's proved, I believe, in his actions, and by his words, and by his own handwriting on this letter, what it's all about.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's what it's all about. So let's hear an

explanation for this one, and while he's at it let's get back to the

other one and hear a real explanation for that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd be delighted, as I said in

my letter, to consider anybody whom the member for Prince Rupert would

like to suggest should serve on that Northwest College Council. The

invitation is still open; we've not received any suggestion from the

member, nor have we received a suggestion from him tonight. If the

member is sincere in his indignation, then he could well redress his

grievance this evening by sending forward the suggestions that he has

for people from his area. And who would we consult more about

geographical representation than the MLA for that area? No one.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think, given the wide geographical

area that each of these college councils represents.... Remember, there

are many, many communities in British Columbia and there are only 14 of

these colleges, so it would be impossible to have every single

community represented at all times on

[ Page 1620 ]

the council of a given college. That's why we have school board representation on these college councils.

We may change the makeup of the governors of these college councils

when we bring

an Act in next year, but for the moment there is

representation on the boards of governors from the school districts in

each of these councils, some appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. We can't represent every geographical

area, but we can make an effort, and we're prepared at any time to

consider outstanding nominations put forward by anyone for these boards.

It's an onerous task; they don't get adequate recognition for the

very time-consuming and valuable efforts that they put out. But we're

going to try and be as fair as we possibly can in having geographical

communities and the interests of the college itself represented on the

board of governors.

Obviously, if there's a strong commitment at a given college for a

vocational programme, we would want to have governors who are

knowledgeable about the programmes that were particularly emphasized at

that institution. I would have hoped that the member would have

interpreted the remarks made in that letter with regard to the

particular programmes that are being offered in the Northwest College

Council. I would have thought that he'd recognize the very sincere

effort we made to solicit suggestions from him, since he raised a

legitimate complaint — I think a very legitimate one — that we weren't

able to address ourselves to immediately, but which we would be quite

prepared to do in the future.

All the member has to do is to submit the names as we suggested. If

he would care to do that now we'll do our very best as soon as possible

to see that the community of Prince Rupert is represented by a

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment.

I would hope that he would communicate to his constituency the fact

that the Department of Education is not paying any attention in the

recommendations that it made to the fact that an NDP member was

returned. If any fault can be found, Mr. Chairman, it was the

interpretation that the member for Prince Rupert made that it would be

useless for him to put somebody forward because he was an opposition

MLA. Quite the reverse.

I believe that had that member not wished to make that

interpretation on what this government might do, he might long ago have

put forward names from the city of Prince Rupert and we might have been

able to pay some attention to his request by now. But in any event, I

want to make it very clear that we would welcome any suggestions that

he would care to make.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening

the name of Ren ée Taylor was raised with respect to the North Island

College council. Rene Taylor was an appointee to the North Island

College council and is a member of the Nimpkish band at Alert Bay. Rene

Taylor was unable to continue in her position and that may have been

the reason she was not appointed by the new minister to the North

Island College. However, the Nimpkish band council wrote on January

22, 1976, just as the minister has asked, making a recommendation for a

replacement of Rene Taylor to the North Island College council. The

person whom they recommended was Gloria Cranmer Webster.

I would just like to say a couple of words about Gloria Webster. As

I say, they recommended on January 22 to the minister that she be

appointed to the North Island College council. Do you know, Mr.

Chairman, that to this day they have not even had an acknowledgement of

that letter, not a word from the minister with respect to their

recommendation for an appointee to the North Island College council?

They read in the paper last week that somebody else from the north end

of the Island has been appointed, a representative from the Rayonier

Co. at Port McNeill. But Gloria Cranmer Webster was an assistant

curator at UBC working with Dr. Hawthorne. She is a social worker. She

is a linguist who is a specialist in the Quabios language. She was on

the advisory board to the First Citizens Council. She has been involved

with the whole process of attempting to advance education at Alert Bay.

They have done an excellent job. They have worked for months and months

and months in that band council preparing material for educational

opportunities for people in the north end of the Island. They have

their own marine college at this stage.

They have been most disturbed, Mr. Chairman, to be left out of any

of the discussions with respect to the future of the marine college in

this province, because they have been operating one for some time. They

have been offering upgrading courses of various kinds right at Alert

Bay. Now, as I say, this letter was written on January 22. There was no

response whatsoever from the minister. Gloria Cranmer Webster would be

an excellent addition to the North Island College council and I think

it is regrettable that the minister does not even respond to a request

made by the Nimpkish band council.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to check the

log in the Department of Education to see if we received such a letter.

But the fact that no acknowledgement has gone out from the Department

of Education makes me wonder if there might have been some slip-up in

the mails. But we would be very happy to consider very seriously the

nominee of the Nimpkish people, and, again, until we check into it I

can't tell you whether such a letter ever arrived. I can tell you that

I never saw such a letter.

[ Page 1621 ]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

As far as the marine college is concerned, I think, Mr. Chairman,

the member should know that the department has just appointed a

committee to give advice about the future direction of marine training

in British Columbia so there couldn't be a more opportune time for the

Nimpkish to have input into marine training in British Columbia.

MS. SANFORD: They're not even consulted.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, the whole point is that the committee

is there as an advisory committee, and what I am suggesting to the

member, Mr. Chairman, is that now is the appropriate time to be in

touch with the committee because they will be investigating all aspects

of marine training in British Columbia and making a report to the

department. We would be absolutely delighted for the Nimpkish people to

be in contact with our marine advisory committee. We'll make certain

that committee gets in touch with them because policy is going to be

formulated in the next year with regard to marine training in British

Columbia. I can assure you that this will be looked into.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the

minister has said that he would welcome any input from the Nimpkish

band council on discussions on the marine college. There was a good

deal of publicity following your initial statements about the future of

a marine college in the province and I know that in the major dailies —

I think it was the Vancouver Sun , although I may be wrong on

that — there was that coverage at the time in which the Nimpkish band

expressed their dissatisfaction at not being consulted with respect to

the future of the marine college, because they had been working on this.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were not saying that they were likely to cancel out.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, that's true. But you're saying that you

would welcome their participation now. But surely the publicity which

has surrounded your initial statements on the marine college and the

response from the Nimpkish band council, again receiving press

coverage, should have indicated to you that they were dissatisfied at

the time, and it could have been followed up at that time.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't understand, really, what the problem is.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the problem is that they have been

operating a marine college in the north end of the island, at Alert

Bay, for some time. When you mentioned that you were setting up an

advisory council on this and mentioned several names of people who

would be on the advisory council, no mention was made of anyone from

the Nimpkish band council or from the marine college that had been

operational up there.

They were disturbed at the time, and they made mention of this in

the press, certainly within the riding, and also it was contained in

the press in the major dailies. But you are saying at this time that

you will contact them in order to seek their advice on this advisory

council on the marine college.

If I can have just one more moment, the other thing that you might

be interested in, Mr. Minister, is the copy of the letter which I have

received today. A copy has gone to you, and it is a letter from the

band manager of the Nimpkish band at Alert Bay. It's a letter addressed

to the editor of the North Island Gazette . As I say, this arrived just

today, but I will read it for you:

"Dear Sir:

We read with interest the announcement of Keith Bicey's appointment

to the North Island College council. On January 22, 1976, we wrote to Pat McGeer,

Minister of Education, recommending the appointment of a Nimpkish band member

to the North Island College council. We outlined several valid reasons to support

our recommendation, including the Nimpkish band's long-range educational

plans, particularly the extension of marine college programmes. To date we have

not even had an acknowledgment from Dr. McGeer.

"The two communities, that is Alert Bay and Port

Hardy, having North Island College co-ordinators, now have no

representation on the college council, which seems a little strange to

us. Perhaps the situation seems strange to other people as well,

particularly those at Port Hardy.

"Social Credit Strikes again," ends the letter,

"Yours

truly,

Pearl Alfred, Band Manager."

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if the member would make

available to me the original letter that was written, then I'd have the

opportunity of seeing it — which I simply haven't seen. Now it could be

the department's fault, that somehow the letter just slipped through

and wasn't opened, or it could be that it didn't arrive. So until I

determine that, I can't give a specific answer to this.

I can tell you that wherever possible... Just again, I repeat: in

these spread-out college districts, we do everything we can to see that

there's geographical representation. There is membership on these

councils by the school boards, which helps to

[ Page 1622 ]

compensate for whatever we're unable to take off by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment. As far as the marine

college is

concerned, the whole purpose of setting up an advisory committee was to

go into questions of precisely this nature.

There is on the advisory committee a member of the native

brotherhood — again, not appointed for that reason, but it just happens

to be the case. So, again, there is a special opportunity to see that

the interest of marine training of the Nimpkish people of the north

island is well served.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the removal of

Mr. Thom, I would just like to make the point that the NDP appointed

Mr. Byng Thom to the UBC board of governors because of his proven

competence. I think it can be proven that he had competence in the

areas of the criteria which the minister has stated. So we have no

conclusions, Mr. Chairman, to come to now, except the fact the minister

obviously did not consider Mr. Thom competent to serve on the board of

governors, which I think is a very sad thing to hear from the Minister

of Education in reference to a man who has proven his competence in so

many fields. Obviously it was a very subjective decision, or a very

political decision — one or the other — but one which certainly could

not be rationalized on the basis of Mr. Thom's competence.

The other point I wish to make is in reference to the criteria which

the minister has repeated over and over again for his appointments. The

most interesting thing about those criteria is that the way he applies

them is, apparently, to get one sector of society. I want to back that

up by just giving a few examples — and this is only referring to two

colleges in our district. I can get further press releases, but I don't

wish to bore the House by going through many more at this time. But we

can start off with two college councils and the recent appointments

made by the Minister of Education — and let's remember that he said

there were three criteria.

I don't want to name the people, because there's no intention here

to suggest these people are not competent; the point I'm trying to make

is that it is very interesting that in the minister's opinion such

competence only seems to rest in the managerial or the professional

area. For example, recent ministerial appointments to North Island

College include the manager of Rayonier Canada, Northern Division, and

the president and general manager of CFCP Radio Ltd. To Northern Lights

College was appointed a partner in a chartered accountant firm who is

the president of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce. Then we have in

the Cranbrook area another appointment of a lawyer from a law firm in

that area. Then we move on and we find the appointment of a surgeon....

AN HON. MEMBER: He was already on the board.

MRS. DAILY: He was on the board. I'm trying to show, though,

that the additions that are made are all from one sector — managerial

or professional — by this minister. Another appointment was a Texaco

bulk agent; another was a branch accountant with Cominco.

I just want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that I am not here to cast

any aspersions on the ability of those people. What I am very concerned

about is that when the minister is seeking the criteria which he says

he must have in his appointments, it's obvious that he considers there

is only one sector of society — the managerial or the professional

sector of our society — which has those abilities. What about all the

other people in the area who pay taxes, who have an interest in

education, who happen to have an understanding of fiscal responsibility

and can meet the other requirements? They have contributed to their

community, but unfortunately they don't happen to be in the managerial

sector, they don't happen to have a professional degree, they don't

happen to be lawyers, doctors, et cetera. Therefore I think it's a very

sad day for British Columbia that many capable people in this province

are never going to receive college appointments under the Social Credit

government unless they happen to belong to a certain elitist group in

our society. I think that is the point which we are trying to bring to

the minister's attention.

All he has to do is look through the appointments that have been

made since he came in. Yes, the minister can stand up and say, "Oh, no,

I did put a labour one in here, a smattering here and there," but the

majority of your appointments, Mr. Minister, have been dealing with

only one sector of our society. When the New Democratic Party came in,

it did not come in on the idea that the best council or board is to

take a sector from here and sector from there. We too looked at

competence, and attempted to look at it. We also looked at a wide

sector when it comes to the whole group of taxpayers of this province,

no matter if they belong to the managerial or the professional sector.

I am asking the minister to remember when appointments come up that

there are many capable people in the communities who are willing to

serve on these college boards who may not have a professional degree or

a university degree, and may not have risen to the top in management,

but who can indeed meet his criteria.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I must reject what the member

has said as being not accurate in fact. I want to just cite some of the

appointments that our government has made which really just

[ Page 1623 ]

completely demolish the arguments of the member. Just to give one

example, a member that we appointed to the Northwest College council,

one that the member for Prince George has complained about, is a labour

man. We appointed him, and, Mr. Chairman, he's the first vice-president

of the Terrace NDP....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister said

that I complained about people or some particular person who had been

appointed to the board. I have not complained about any appointment

that the minister has made to Northwest Community College. I only

complained that no one was appointed from Prince Rupert.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that is not a correct point of order. You can make a correction when the minister....

MR. LEA: It is a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it isn't.

MR. LEA: Whether it is a point of order or not, I just wish the minister would correct it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm merely pointing out for

the members opposite that you said in one college all we do is appoint

management people. Well, to the Northwest College council, who was our

appointment? — first vice-president of the NDP in Terrace and a member

of the Terrace Labour Council. Is that management? Is that prejudice?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: One.

HON. MR. McGEER: One? All right, just last week I had

occasion to write a letter to a member of the Victoria Labour Council,

Mr. Larry Ryan, pleading with him to stay on as a member of the board

of governors of the University of Victoria. That was an appointment

that you made and it's an appointment that we would make, if we had the

opportunity, because he's outstanding — not because he's a member of

the Victoria Labour Council or a supporter of the NDP.

It so happens that we have appointed labour people to the board of

governors of BCIT and to Selkirk College. I would have to bring the

list of all the people up here, but I'd be happy to read off, if the

member wishes, the names of labour people that we have appointed. It

isn't an isolated circumstance, Madam Member. I am recalling certain

specific names that I can recall now, but I think you will find that

there are representatives of labour on nearly all of the educational

boards in British Columbia.

I want to emphasize once more, Mr. Chairman, to you and all the

members of the House that Mr. Hutchison was not appointed to the board

of the Northwest College council because he was on the Terrace Labour

Council or because he was the first vice-president of the NDP; he was

appointed because he was a good man. These are the criteria that we

take into consideration — not whether they are representatives of

labour or any political party or anything except the criteria that I

have listed. It is going to turn out, Mr. Chairman, that a reasonable

representation of such people will come from management and they will

come from labour. But there is no discrimination involved; I want to

lay that myth to rest.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, all of the statements made by the

hon. minister today have served really to confuse the issue of Mr. Byng

Thom's competence. The hon. minister laid down three criteria for

service on the board. It had to do with competence in the field of

one's endeavour, a commitment to the educational process, and fiscal

responsibility. Everything the minister has said to date would seem to

leave the impression that in one of these three areas Mr. Byng Thom was

found wanting....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or all of them.

MS. BROWN: Or in all of the three areas Mr. Byng Thom was

found wanting. I think it's only fair to Mr. Thom that that issue be

cleared up for once and for all.

Here is a man, Mr. Chairman, who is a graduate of the University of

British Columbia, a graduate of whom the university is extremely proud

because his record while at the university and after was very

honourable. He is an outstanding architect, as I mentioned earlier.

Some of the more beautiful buildings in this province — and, indeed, in

other provinces throughout this country — were designed by Byng Thom.

So there can't be any question about his ability in terms of his

profession. Mr. Byng Thom is committed to the concept of a good

educational structure. If there is any question about this, then the

minister should say so. In his capacity as an architect he has had to

operate within very clear lines of economic criteria and certainly has

had to demonstrate his fiscal responsibility.

The minister has also said over and over again that the reason Mr.

Thom was removed from the board had nothing to do with politics. In

fact, the reason that Mr. Thom was placed on the board had nothing to

do with politics; the reason that Mr. Thom was placed on the board, Mr.

Chairman, had nothing to do with his race. It was because the previous

minister felt that Mr. Thom met all of the three criteria laid down by

the present minister and, indeed, additional criteria. I think that it

is only fair to Mr. Thom that

[ Page 1624 ]

the minister should at this point clarify in which of the three

areas Mr. Thom failed in his work on the board and the reason why his

term of office was terminated. He did not serve out his term; it wasn't

just a matter of his period not being renewed. A very serious criticism

is being made by one of British Columbia's outstanding citizens. I

think it is only fair that the minister should clarify his reasons for

terminating Mr. Thom's service on the board at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 39 pass?

MS. BROWN: No, vote 39 shall not pass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, in the area of appointments and

dealing with one or two of the minister's appointments in another area,

I would just like to suggest that there are people other than

industrialists and other than people largely involved in major business

situations in the province who can make a contribution. Justifying his

appointments to the board of ICBC, justifying the total dominance of

that board with business people by indicating that this kind of complex

business cannot be guided in any way by someone other than of that ilk,

shows the kind of direction that the minister took in all of his

endeavours.

Mr. Chairman, we heard the minister suggest that there were those

people on the college councils and the university council and boards of

governors who were other than industrialists. Check out their members.

Who suggests that anything other than what the minister deems right

should be in the majority? But it's such a vast majority.

Just for a second, go over the appointments to the board of directors of ICBC. Vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. COCKE: What do you mean order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: ...Vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel; retired

former chief executive officer of the Guardian Union Group of insurance

companies, an actuary; president and chairman of the board of a major

computer organization; formerly president and chief executive officer

of PWA — Mr. Chairman, they're all good guys.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: They're all good guys, but where do you hear the

voice of the people from this group, Mr. Chairman? This particular

group of individuals who are far removed...and you know, Mr. Chairman,

you can suggest all you like that people who are involved in the

day-to-day activities of the average person haven't the qualifications

to advise on ICBC or other government activities. It's dead wrong. It's

absolutely wrong and it's elitism at the very heart of this problem and

it's also paying homage to those who one feels are very important

friends. It's not good enough. It's certainly not good enough for our

educational system. We heard a story tonight that makes one wince,

particularly when one sees the tremendous amount of time involved. I

listened to the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) talk about how

the NDP made their appointments.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): When?

MR. COCKE: Just a little while ago from his seat — never

standing, Mr. Chairman. It was interesting that in New Westminster, if

the member would check out, he would find that the person who ran

against me for the Socreds I appointed to the hospital board and

reappointed because that particular individual is a hard worker in

health care....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 39.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's an answer to that kind of questioning.

MR. CHABOT: What about it?

MR. COCKE: What about it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: One person on a board that was so totally

dominated...and you can be as red-faced — and you should be — because

you're a part of that terrible establishment in Surrey that tried to

dominate everything for the last number of years. I'd be hanging my

head if I were you. What about Surrey? That's a good one to talk about.

You and your value schools!

Mr. Chairman, I'll get right back to vote whatever we're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 39.

MR. COCKE: That's a good number, Mr. Chairman, particularly at this hour of the night.

[ Page 1625 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I don't know what you're talking about. But, you

know, that minister, whenever he's minister from time to time, keeps

defending himself in this House, but he's going to have a hard time

defending the situation out in Surrey because it's going from bad to

worse. He left a real mess.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's part of this whole elitism thing.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's from a director of ICBC. Yes, Mr. Chairman,

we're going to hear plenty about ICBC from both sides of this House

before this vote goes down the tube. Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, don't let.... The minister from

Gellately Road is sitting there, pontificating. Don't you start giving

me any of your lip over there, Mr. Premier. The fact of the matter is...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members! Hon. members!

MR. COCKE: ...that I was asked by eight members of your party to resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members!

MR. COCKE: And you and all the rest of this creation couldn't

get me to resign or shut up about ICBC. You'll be hearing about it for

the next four years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, vote 39.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. What I read to

you earlier with respect to vote 39 was just another direction that we

see in this new coalition party — taking away as much as you can from

the people. Take it away from the people so these very lofty decisions

can be made from those on high, or those considered to be on high, by

the elitists in the coalition.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss a few matters

under the minister's responsibilities. First of all, I couldn't get up

without responding en passant to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

who talked about the BCTF supposed closed shop — he referred to it as a

union. I hope that the minister takes a responsible attitude toward

that suggestion. It is surprising — the member for Oak Bay, for whom I

have a fair amount of respect, I think, was found maybe without all his

homework done — because BCTF certainly is a professional organization,

not a political organization. In fact, it was only forced to become a

political organization because of activities which took place in

government starting around 1970, or before, when the....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You say its a political organization?

MR. NICOLSON: It's a professional organization.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are going to get to vote 39.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, are you saying that I am out of

order when the Premier is trying to interrupt me and trying to

intimidate me with that fantastic staccato rhetoric and...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, the member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the

British Columbia Teachers Federation has provided a service where for

years and years and years the government of British Columbia failed to

give the wherewithal to the Department of Education to respond. The

BCTF led the way in terms of curriculum revision, and when it was

finally allowed to go through, starting in the sciences and

mathematics, it was more through the efforts of the BCTF, and also

through the efforts of many teachers who gave of their time that, first

of all, the curriculum was revised. Then having revised it, the

teachers indulged in in-service training. I know of many teachers, Mr.

Chairman, who paid money out of their own pockets and attended two-week

workshops to upgrade themselves when the new programmes of physics, for

example, were introduced into grades 11 and 12, starting back in the

fall of 1964.

I find it rather ironic that a member of the medical profession would accuse the BCTF of being a political entity...

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you wait until he's through?

MR. NICOLSON: ...when in the medical profession the AMA not

only indulged in politics in their own country, but they came across

the border into Saskatchewan and opposed Tommy Douglas when he brought

in the first medicare programme in Canada. That's what I call a

political organization. I am not accusing the present members of the

B.C.

[ Page 1626 ]

Medical Association for having their heads in that space, but I can

only say that it's rather ironic that such an accusation should be made

in this House.

But enough for defending the Minister of Education. Now I would like to....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Not for answering for the Minister of Education — it's something I don't think he responded to.

Now I would like to discuss a few other items, one of which the

minister has said that he would like to see — a type of evaluation of

our educational system, the testing, standardized achievement-testing

of our curriculum objectives and so on.

I would like to know what the minister feels is the future of

government exams at the high-school leaving — grade 12 government

exams...what his feelings are on that. I would also like to know what

the minister feels about scholarship exams and, indeed, about the

semester system.

Speaking as an individual, I feel that following the introduction of

much-needed curriculum revision, everyone felt that they had to get

into the act, and the administrators were, perhaps, the last ones.

The panacea that seemed to come about, or the way in which they

worked out their own creative and experimental compulsions, was to

create the master system. I would submit to the minister that he should

look at the semester system very carefully. I think that it's

expensive, I think it's wasteful, and I think it's undermining the work

ethic in our education system. I don't expect the minister to agree

with me in my feelings about it, but I would say that it was really a

way of administrators kind of doing their little bit of experimentation

after the various curriculum revisions had taken place, from K to 12.

I, for one, having taught grade 12 for most of my teaching career

and been subject to government exams, am not one who objects to being

subjected to externally imposed government exams. I do feel that when

economy measures were brought in in the late 1960s, and poorly

researched multiple-choice items were brought in — items in which the

validity of the test items had not been tested in prior usage, and so

on — they were, I think, very poor, but perhaps subjective. Government

exams were something that maybe did keep some teachers on their toes. I

think that if they're not overdone, teachers can avoid just having to

teach toward exams all year long. Teachers can still be creative and

still have final government exams to look forward to at the end of

grade 12.

I am more concerned about scholarship exams. There seems to be some

uncertainty about the future of grade 12 scholarship exams. I'd also

point out to the minister that there have been some changes made from

time to time, and there was at the beginning of the introduction of

scholarship exams, which started back about 1965 or something like

requirement and people were allowed to write their best subjects and

take the two best scores they scored. I think it's been reintroduced

hope I'm not misunderstood — that there's a cultural bias in requiring

certainly are in economic need and people who are sometimes very

brilliant but perhaps lacking in the cultural background which creates

I taught in Nelson school district. There are many people of Russian

origin — people would know them as Doukabors. A great number of the

a background which is perhaps a little bit closer to speaking Russian

at home, where Russian is still the major language at home. Here there

are some difficulties in language. These students would excel in

physics and chemistry and mathematics. They might even be fairly good

in French. They might even excel in French and still have some

I taught would often run into this, particularly if they were maybe a

first-generation family or maybe didn't have as many years in Canada as

others. In families which had emigrated maybe three generations ago it

wasn't a factor.

In fact, I think that just on the basis of socio-economic

background, on the basis of whether or not families have magazines in

the home.... A lot of families do not subscribe to magazines such as

Macleans and so on, which young people might tend to read. A lot of

families do not have encyclopaedias, do not subscribe to the Time-Life

series, and so on, and enrich the background at home.

university. But I believe that people that can show some exceptional

whether the exceptional ability be in mathematics, chemistry, physics

or biology, should be given a chance and should be given financial

incentives and financial assistance to go on into post-secondary

education.

I'd also like to say a few things to the minister about Notre Dame

University. As I said to the minister during the budget debate, I feel

that the minister has put Notre Dame University in a needlessly

difficult situation. There have been conflicting statements because of

the official pose that everything must go through the universities

council. Yet we had statements by the minister, by

[ Page 1627 ]

the deputy minister and by the president of the universities council

which I believe still cannot be reconciled. The letter from Dr.

Armstrong to the president of Notre Dame University, Mr. Hoole, used

the expression: "I have been advised by the deputy minister that these

matters must be resolved by" such-and-such a date. I had the file in

here earlier and I don't intend to dwell upon that, but I just remind

the minister that that statement I think placed a question mark over

the head of yourself and these two persons who are responsible to you.

You said that no interference was there, and so on.

Also, of course, Notre Dame University was told to comply with a

certain number of requests of the universities council, I think by

April 15. By April 8 they had taken all of these matters into account

and I think they had resolved them. They were then told to resolve

matters of faculty curtailment and matters with Selkirk College. Now I

understand that matters of faculty curtailment are under negotiation

and are almost finalized, and I am confident that they will meet the

requirements which have been set, Mr. Minister.

The member who could be loosely associated with the Kootenays is

bored by this discussion and I don't think that he should be. I'm not

talking about the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad); I'm talking about

the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He seems to be bored,

though, and it distresses me because he should be one who is concerned

about post-secondary education in the East and West Kootenays.

Faculty is being curtailed, or will be, in compliance with the

recommendations of the minister. The minister talks in terms of

everything having to go through the universities council, but his

deputy has been very useful in terms of these talks and very much

involved in these talks. The president of the universities council

isn't here, but a deputy minister who is with us here this evening is

also very involved in this.

So there is an official position that everything must go through the

universities council. Yet I think that the minister and his deputy are,

perhaps as they very rightfully should be, very much involved in the

day-to-day proceedings, because it just can't be done that simply

without involvement, and shouldn't be done without involvement at the

very highest level.

Mr. Chairman, the discussions are proceeding very fruitfully with

Selkirk College about their involvement in offering first- and

second-year programmes at Notre Dame. So I'm confident that you will

have your request fulfilled about faculty curtailment and your request

about involvement of Selkirk College for first- and second-year

programmes. A community that has struggled since 1950 to provide

post-secondary education somewhere else besides in the lower mainland

area.... In fact, at the very least, Selkirk College is not the third

university in British Columbia. Notre Dame would be considered the

third, if not the second.

Mr. Chairman, a community that does things for itself should be

rewarded for that type of initiative which it has shown, for the

determination and the support that has been shown for Selkirk College.

Because Selkirk College was founded and supported by a referendum

because of support....

Oh, I was watching the lights and not the clock.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Well, I think you might have some

answers, Mr. Minister. What I would like to say is this: because of all

of these things that have been done, they can't be done just to buy

just one more year. If these requirements are met, can you give some

encouragement that the university will continue to exist beyond 1977? I

think that is the most crucial important question to which you can

address yourself, but I would be pleased to hear the minister's remarks.

HON. MR. McGEER: If I can deal very briefly with this latter

subject raised by the member, I know he has a keen interest in

post-secondary education in the Nelson area. I want to assure him and

the people of Nelson that the government and the Department of

Education also have a very keen interest in the programmes that can be

offered of a post-secondary nature at Nelson. Now what we've done is

we've said to a private institution that became utterly dependent in a

very brief period of time on large government grants, completely beyond

anything that was being financed by government in any of the 99

institutions that it is responsible for, that Notre Dame, if it were to

be funded in the future, would have to be funded on the same basis and

by the same criteria as our public universities. We said that the

universities council, because it administers the funds for our existing

public universities, should be the responsible body to determine

precisely what these criteria are. There has been no conflicting point

of view coming from the government or the Department of Education. We

stated our policy very early and we've been consistent in that.

I want to commend the member and the former Minister of Education

(Mrs. Dailly) for being thoroughly responsible in this matter. But

there has been a continual series of approaches being made to the

Department of Education, to the deputy minister, to the press, all

trying to avoid what were the very simple criteria laid down by the

Department of Education and a policy that was very obvious for anybody

to interpret and act upon. We can only interpret all of this as a

resistance on the part of Notre Dame University to accept the criteria

that are

[ Page 1628 ]

established for our public universities.

Now if and when they are prepared to do that, the money which has

been set aside to be administered by the universities council will be

released for their future. But it has to be, Mr. Member, on the basis

of meeting the criteria of the public universities. That is not an

unreasonable request for the Department of Education to make. The other

is that if there is to be a long-term commitment to post-secondary

education in the Nelson area, then it has to be, in our view, by a

public educational body.

If Notre Dame wishes to remain as a private university with

self-governance, then, of course, it has to take responsibility —

financial responsibility — for that independence. If it doesn't wish to

be a totally independent, self-governing institution, then it has to

meet public criteria and therefore be eventually absorbed in some form

or other into the public educational system of British Columbia.

But on a long-term basis I see it has to be one of those two

courses: completely independent, finance yourself; if you want a

guarantee of long-term commitment on the part of this government and

future governments, then meet the public criteria and be absorbed into

the public system. The choice is up to Notre Dame.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada