1977 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3851 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Alleged irregularities in ICBC payments. Mr. Macdonald –– 3851

Studies of oil-spill hazards in Burrard inlet. Mr. Gibson –– 3853

Pharmacare decision concerning megavitamins. Mr. Wallace –– 3853

Possible problems with PREP. Ms. Brown –– 3853

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 158.

Mr. Cocke –– 3854

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3858

Mr. Wallace –– 3862

Mr. Gibson –– 3865

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3867

Mr. Barber –– 3870

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3874

Mr. King –– 3874

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3875

Ms. Brown –– 3875

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 3878

Division on a motion that the committee rise and report progress ––

On vote 15 8.

Ms. Sanford –– 3880

Mrs. Wallace –– 3881

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni) : I'd like the members to welcome a number of people in the gallery today. First of all, Mrs. Wendy Burns, a former schoolmate of mine and a former resident of New Westminster, is down here visiting with her family and neighbours.

I'd also like to introduce Alderman Walter Behn and Mrs. Behn, down from Port Alberni.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca) : With us in the gallery this afternoon are three individuals from my constituency of Omineca who are down in Victoria today to meet with the hon. Minister of Human Resources to outline a most fantastic programme that they have initiated in Vanderhoof on behalf of the retarded children of that area. I would like the House to make them welcome. There's Eileen Kimball, Dave Salter and Ray Vickers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano) : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend and constituent from North Vancouver-Capilano, Jane Burden, and I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. SKELLY : Two more people here today are from the Vancouver People's Law School, which produced an excellent video programme on the Trident weapons system. As members know, there's a resolution- before us in the House which has not yet come up for debate. They are Elvira Lount, from the Vancouver People's Law School, and Gay Ludlow, from Triad Communications in Vancouver. I'd ask the members to make them welcome as well.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox) : I would like today to introduce to the House Mr. and Mrs. Pat Thomas and their two daughters, who have with them a guest from Montreal. This is her first visit to B.C. Her name is Helene Moreau. I would like the House to make them all welcome.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES

IN ICBC PAYMENTS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East) : I have a question to the Premier

in the absence of the two directors of ICBC. In the case of a claim by one Leslie

Wood, No. 1958660, an accident of February 21,1976, of a 1975 Fort Bronco, if

it is established that Wood lied to the ICBC and to the police in claiming that

the car was stolen when, in fact, he had given the keys to one Hansford and

both were high on drugs at the time of the accident, should that kind of claim

be paid by ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, perhaps now that the Minister of Education in charge of ICBC is present in the chamber, the hon. member for Vancouver East would like to repeat his question to the proper minister.

MR. MACDONALD : This question is to the Minister of Education regarding claim No. 1958660 of Leslie Wood, with which the minister will be familiar at this time. The accident was February 21,1976; it was a 1975 Fort Bronco. It is established to the satisfaction of ICBC and the police that Wood lied to both in saying that the car had been stolen when it went into an accident at the Pay 'N Save in Surrey, and there were good grounds to believe that both were high on drugs - the man who was supposed to have taken it, but had been given the keys - Hansford and Wood. Should that kind of claim be paid by ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER : I could, perhaps, comment that the hon. member for Vancouver East is asking the minister to comment on what would be a legal question and to give a legal opinion.

MR. MACDONALD : No, no. If a man [illegible], should he pay?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) : The answer, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not, if the case could be defended in court.

While I am on my feet perhaps I could reply to questions asked by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , who tabled a letter in the House with regard to a claim by Surrey Dodge. After question period I'll table documents in the House.

It was a stolen letter, Mr. Speaker. The interesting thing is that there was no copy of that letter in the files of ICBC. What there was in the files of ICBC, discovered this morning, was the original of that letter, returned undeliverable and unopened. I find it strange that the copy of the letter should have been removed from the file while the original was returned as undeliverable.

I will also file with the House, Mr. Speaker, at the end of question period an affidavit from Mr. Ronald Richard Hudgins to the effect that he reported the claim to ICBC not once but twice - once during the strike and once approximately one week after the strike was concluded - and was informed by somebody at the Surrey claim centre to go ahead and have the automobile fixed. Now unfortunately, no record of this is in the files of the ICBC claim centre.

[ Page 3852 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, may I say finally that there is far more to this than meets the eye? At the present time a thorough investigation is taking place.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster) : Mr. Speaker, I have another document indicating that this was the first claim made by Mr. Hudgins, and I will table that shortly.

The question is, Mr. Speaker: Doesn't the minister know that he's certainly being fed incorrect information?

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, one moment, please, before we continue further. This, I would remind all hon. members, is question period, in which we allow main questions and supplementals. It is not a case of debate or argument or engagement in the form of a supplemental question or a main question which in fact does not state any particular question at all but a point of view.

MR. MACDONALD : Incidentally, ICBC, in spite of the advice of its adjusters, never had a chance to defend that case in court.

To the Minister of Education: is it not also true that Mr. Winfield, who wrote the memorandum of December 16,1976, which the minister filed in this House, in which he said he was instructed to pay this and another claim - I refer to another supplementary - was interviewed in Victoria, I think it was, by high officials and refused to recant his statement, which is supported by the letter of Joe Morley, the chief claims officer, that indeed the instructions to settle both did come from Bortnick's office?

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Winfield did attend my office in Victoria ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh!

HON. MR. McGEER : ... uninvited, and did explain to me, uninvited, and presented me with a letter, which I would be happy to table to the House, in which he presented his side of the story.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition) : His side of the story which you filed in this House.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please! Do you have any further supplementary question?

MR. MACDONALD : In regard to a claim of Leslie Wood, four days later

on February 25,1976 - No. 1959443 - involving the same Ford Bronco, should that

claim have been paid when Wood again lied to the corporation in that he claimed

that he did not know who the hitchhiker was who was with him when the car went

into the ditch on 72nd Street, when in fact the hitchhiker was the same Hansford

who had been high on drugs with him on February 21 and there were grounds to

believe there was intoxication at the time of that accident? Should it be paid

in those circumstances?

MR. SPEAKER : The hon. first member for Vancouver East is engaging in the type of debate that could be argumentative as far as a question is concerned, strictly concerning the facts of the matter.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I can only refer to the documents I previously tabled in the House regarding the review of the case by the claims coverage committee. I haven't read the file. Obviously the member has some stolen documents. If he'd table them, perhaps we would have a chance to review them.

MR. BARRETT : You haven't read the file!

HON. MR. McGEER : Obviously you've got the file.

MR. MACDONALD : I have a supplementary. I asked the minister, in view of the payout of these two claims which I have referred to, in the total amount of $1,720.35 on August 20,1976, when Wood was the insured and the corporation had a judgment against Wood for $613.50, why was this not deducted from what went to the finance company, First Chartered, which can't possibly get more than the insured. Why was the amount of the judgment against the insured not deducted?

HON. MR. McGEER : Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm no lawyer and the member who asked the question is. So he, no doubt, knows the answer to the question, which lawyers tell me is that you cannot cross accounts and that it would have been illegal for the corporation to attempt to do so.

MR. MACDONALD : Oh, nonsense!

MR. BARRETT : I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has informed the House that he did speak to Mr. Winfield about this case, and he has also informed the House that he hasn't read the file himself. Is the minister saying that he discussed this matter with Mr. Winfield without indeed referring to the file?

HON. MR. McGEER : Of course, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 3853 ]

that's correct, and as I have explained to the House before, I have no intention of reviewing any files of ICBC; we have people who are paid to do that. Nor do I deal in stolen documents, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT : Why did you call Winfield over?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

STUDIES OF OIL-SPILL HAZARDS

IN BURRARD INLET

MR. GIBSON : I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister or the Environment and Land Use Committee started studies into the oil spill hazards which will be caused by the unprecedented tanker traffic into Burrard Inlet which will be caused by the plans of B.C. Hydro to oil-fire the Burrard thermal unit?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment) : Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice. To my knowledge, that's not specifically on that most recent suggestion. So I will ask our people if indeed they have done any preliminary study for Burrard Inlet.

PHARMACARE DECISION

CONCERNING MEGAVITAMINS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. With regard to Pharmacare, he had previously stated that the Pharmacare programme would be closely monitored to ensure that changes in the programme would not cause hardship. Can he tell the House if, as a result of his meeting with Dr. Hoffer on July 5, and in light of the earnest appeal by patients with multiple sclerosis seeking to have megavitamins provided by Pharmacare, any decisions have been taken subsequent to that meeting?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources) : Mr. Speaker, the whole question of megavitamins and megavitamin therapy is being considered by Pharmacare. Certainly if it is deemed advisable that we proceed with some survey or indepth study then that will be the case. The meeting with Dr. Hoffer was most fruitful. He is certainly a very informed person on the usage and the advantages of vitamin therapy. Of course, the profession, as the hon. member knows, still has a great many questions about it. I think perhaps some study might be of benefit. This is now being considered.

MR. WALLACE : I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that at the annual convention of the B.C. Medical Association the minister's suggestion that a study be carried out received something less than a warm welcome by the profession, and since the medical profession through the centuries, like the rest of us, has made many mistakes, could I ask the minister if his decision about a study is being based on the fact that the medical profession has not accepted his invitation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker. I think there might be some hope of the medical profession, through the association, participating in some manner in this study, which is a desire that I have and which I think would be of tremendous assistance. I think there is a hope that they will participate in some form.

MR. WALLACE : I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister if subsequent to that B.C. Medical Association convention the minister has submitted a definitive request to the profession, or is he about to submit a definitive request, requesting that a study would be in the best interest of all concerned? Have you made such a specific request, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I have had further meetings with a representative of the association. I think that certainly has been helpful. A request will be going to them after we have determined the best approach.

POSSIBLE PROBLEMS WITH PREP

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that people who are being referred to the PREP programme are being turned away because of the volume of unemployment in the province as well as inadequate staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'm not sure that I understand the question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer on the basis that the question is: Are we able to cope with the number of referrals provided to the PREP people? May I say that PREP is very actively seeking out jobs, and certainly the records would indicate that each month they are fortunately locating more opportunities for disadvantaged people to become employed in the work force on a fairly permanent basis.

We certainly can't accommodate all of the requests, for a number of reasons. Sometimes, perhaps, the individuals are simply not employment ready; other times they may not be qualified for a particular job, since through PREP we have to seem credible in all respects and provide the employers with the people best able to perform the functions available in that particular position.

[ Page 3854 ]

All I can say - and I think the member knows it -is that I am grateful for the very positive response we're receiving. PREP is working; it's working great.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table the documents that I referred to.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents. Eventually we may get the whole file. (Laughter.)

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER : Maybe you'll read it.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Speaker, may I ask....

MR. SPEAKER : One moment, please. For what purpose is the hon. member for Vancouver East on his feet?

MR. MACDONALD : I want to ask the Premier when Motion 15, a very important motion, will be called and whether the opposition will have any notice of calling that motion. Why hasn't it been called to date? It was set for yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD : Will the Premier answer?

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, there are a number of motions on the order paper, as you well know.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, really, if they're playing politics with this one, which involves the status of three members of this assembly, then I want to know about it!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I would not have raised this point of order had resolution 15 been called. I draw Your Honour's attention to standing order 39, which is as follows:

"If anything should come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate."

I would suggest, Your Honour, that that debate in fact began the minute the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) moved resolution 15 in this House. At that time the proposition of the right of the members to retain their seats was put in question.

It seems to me it should be resolved at the earliest possible moment, which is now. I would ask Your Honour to take that under consideration in the context of standing order 39.

MR. SPEAKER : Speaking to the hon. member's point of order, I think you will recall, hon. member, as all of the members of the House will, that the hon. minister did not move the motion. He asked leave, which was refused. The motion now is on the order paper to be moved at any time after it has been on notice for two days.

MR. GIBSON : On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the right of the members to retain their seat in the House has been put in question by the placing of the motion on the order paper by the Attorney-General. Therefore standing order 39 applies.

HON. MR. McGEER : Even a Philadelphia lawyer couldn't read that into it.

MR. SPEAKER : With respect, I would advise the member that that would not be the conclusion the Chair would reach, but I'll check further into your point of order.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 158: minister's office, $133,168 -

continued.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, we had a brief session on education yesterday and I agree with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) that a good deal of the time yesterday was spent discussing health questions. This was not because the thoughts were introduced by the opposition, but by virtue of the fact that the minister (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , when giving his initial statement, spent almost three-quarters of his time talking about the university hospital, health care and the training of doctors.

Incidentally, it was interesting to me that he did not talk about training nurses, paramedics, or any of the other very important people in health care. He just spoke about doctors. In any event, he was totally preoccupied with that situation.

However, Mr. Chairman, I want to go on. As you will recall, I was cut off by the light yesterday afternoon, right in mid-flight. At that time, I was talking about the trustees in our province and how

[ Page 3855 ]

they are feeling. I said, for example, that the present government are determined to provide - they say - a climate for volunteer activity. They're not really showing that in their response to the B.C. School Trustees Association when they requested grants to get people interested in running for school boards in their Operation Full Slate.

Mr. Chairman, there are many more things I'd like to bring to your attention around this issue. I would like to talk later on about the Jericho Hill School, but just for the moment I'd like to deal with this question of school boards and how they're feeling.

On March 2 in North Vancouver, we heard of a school board and the headline in North Vancouver at that time in the Times was: "School Boards Bypassed." This was a protest by the North Vancouver trustee. That trustee said in the past, I believe, any information of this kind that.... He's talking about schools rapidly becoming useless institutions. It was a question posed by a North Vancouver school board trustee, Don Burbridge.

What Provoked that discussion was a recent directive sent by the Minister of Education to the school district administration notifying it of a new testing programme compulsory for grades 4, 8 and 12. Trustee Burbridge took issue with the method the government used in sending the directive, and that's what motivated him to say in the past, I believe: "Any information of this kind has been sent to the school board.

Are we to let the ministry bypass us in this way?" In other words, they are sending it directly to the minister's trustee superintendents in the field and not even informing the school board that it's occurring. Now if that isn't a bypass, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know what it is. It's typical of the minister's lack of concern for those out there in the field who are more directly responsible for administering education than even himself.

The minister sits in his ivory tower and wants to have all the reins of power and not divest basic responsibility to the school boards. So, Mr. Chairman, he is building up a head of steam within the trustees' association. He's building up a head of steam within school boards generally that is going to be very difficult for him to deal with in the future. Now if the minister wants to outlaw school boards, if he wants to take away all of their responsibilities, let him stand in the House and say so.

As I hinted yesterday afternoon, the trustees' own newsletter certainly indicates their total displeasure with a pronouncement from the ministry that the school board's function is to hire and fire staff and to care for buildings. There is nothing in that suggestion around curriculum, nothing in their responsibility to respond to local needs and local pressures. No, Mr. Chairman, this minister will totally annihilate the whole school board idea if he continues on in his present course.

Mr. Chairman, here is another account from The Peninsula Times in Sechelt. Let's see what they have to say. "The decision by Sechelt School District trustees not to administer a province-wide grade 4 mathematics exam here is meeting with resistance from Victoria." What did the minister say? What was his response? The Minister of Education, when questioned by a reporter last week about the board's decision, replied: "Don't worry, their grade 4s will take the tests." It goes on to say: "McGeer did not elaborate."

Mr. Chairman, 1 know what pressure he is under with ICBC, but there's not enough of the minister's time being taken up in consultation with both school boards and teachers. There is not enough of his time being taken up with consulting people who are most important in education. I think if the minister can't handle both - 1 suspect that he can't handle either -he should give up one responsibility or the other: either ICBC, which incidentally has an increasing bit of a burden, or his responsibility as Minister of Education. It's suffering.

I'd like to go on for a few minutes on finance. We had a note last spring, as 1 recall - another of the minister's press releases - and at that time the minister announced that education costs were up 10.9 per cent. He didn't go on to say, however, that the grants to school districts at the same point were only up 6.6 per cent in spite of budget requests for a 9.5 per cent increase. 1 would say that the reason for the disparity and the reason for the lack of discussing that disparity was the fact that the minister knew perfectly well that the local districts would have to pick up the difference. The local taxpayers continually pick up the difference in this particular area.

The minister, when he was in opposition, used to stand and scream: "Take that load off the backs of the local taxpayers." Now, Mr. Chairman, in a time when he could easily have assisted in taking that load off their backs, he did nothing about it. So this is no great credit to the minister at all.

There was no increase in the homeowner grant for people under 65 for the last two years. That was one of the areas where you were able to reduce the amount that was required for school and other taxes. There was no increase in the tenant grant at the same time. So they lost all around. The local taxpayer took a beating at the hands of this minister, who, when he was in opposition, was one of the most ardent critics of land taxing for education purposes.

Where is he now? He is, Mr. Chairman, where you would expect - right in the hands of his own government bottom-line policy. Divest yourselves of any expenses that are possible. Let other jurisdictions carry the load whenever possible. Bottom-line all the way. Mr. Chairman, 1 suspect that he has really done an about-turn, but I wonder if he was really saying

[ Page 3856 ]

what he thought before. These people are suspect. Were they enunciating what they really felt then or are they really showing their true feelings now? They're two kinds of people.

Mr. Chairman, I think our whole financing philosophy is archaic, and I think I can speak with a fair amount of authority on that. I know the former Minister of Finance is sitting beside me. I wish we had gone more quickly in a way to get away from our incremental budgeting system. But I note that these fine business minds across the way have not in any way altered that incremental system. The incremental system is useful. The old Socreds found it so useful that they kept it in place all the time they were in power, because it was a method of turning the tap on and off in the easiest way.

When we formed the government, we found a system that only measured input. There was no planned programme budgeting or any of the other fancy systems that we've heard talked about.

I want to ask the minister if he, as a member of Treasury Board, and his government and his colleagues on Treasury Board are working on any kind of a system to measure something other than input. Is there going to be a programme-oriented system ultimately in either Education or in the other areas? We were working toward that direction, and I do hope that the present government is taking into consideration some of the thoughts that are available.

Naturally, one of our fears was the federal system of planned programme budgeting, which in a way has done a disservice to the concept. You see war there between ministries and therefore a very heavy drain on the treasury as a result. But there must be a way, Mr. Chairman, and I think there are people in the country who can assist us toward a better budgeting system.

Mr. Chairman, I think we all should agree that we get away from the tap-on, tap-off system. We saw the results of the tap off yesterday when we discussed in some detail what happened to the boundary school in North Vancouver. That's purely a school building freeze.

MR. GIBSON : Whose riding is that in?

MR. COCKE : That's in the riding of the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) .

MR. GIBSON : Has he done anything about it?

MR. COCKE : He sent along a flack and he said that he would bring it

to the minister's attention. However, when I phoned yesterday nothing had

been changed, so I would think that the minister is not that heavy with his

colleague. Nothing has changed there. But this is the kind of thing that occurs.

I charge that the Minister of Education has a school building freeze on right

now and that his argument yesterday that it's within a mile of other schools....

He's talking about grades I to 3, and he's talking about a school that

was built for 100 children, now is serving 320, and will be serving 340 this

fall. Nothing more or less can account for that than the fact the minister has

a freeze on building schools in this province. Even one of his colleagues agrees

with him.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the local taxpayer in this province is in jeopardy. The local taxpayer has not had relief from his tax situation and beyond that, of all things, the local taxpayer's schools aren't being built. The local taxpayer's assistance from the ministry is totally inadequate. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it's time this minister got his nose out of ICBC - as long as he doesn't let the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) run it - and pays attention to his first responsibility. He is the Minister of Education, after all.

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't take much to get this minister's mind off his work. In the first place, he was totally preoccupied with the university hospital. Now he's totally preoccupied with his responsibility at ICBC. Meanwhile, what suffers? The most important area of all - education. The education of our children is the most important area that we can be talking about and I hope that the minister has some answers about this situation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like briefly - and I have some other things I'm going to talk about later - to ask the minister a few questions about Jericho Hill School.

Mr. Chairman, first let me say that the minister, on June 10,1976, tabled some documents in the House on Jericho Hill School. They were studies around decentralization. I'd like to quote some of the things the minister has to say:

"For those parents who wish to continue the education of their children at Jericho Hill School, we've made it clear from the very beginning that that school would remain open and that those people would be permitted to continue to educate their children in that environment. The majority of the deaf children in B.C. are now being educated in their own communities and the results from that type of education, in the opinion of all the experts whom we've been able to martial to bear on this problem, are better. Now what we cannot guarantee is that jobs will continue to exist for all of the staff members who are now at Jericho in view of the declining population of that school."

Mr. Chairman, he talks about a declining population of that school. I can bring to your attention many reasons for the declining population of that school. What are people saying? Here's one

[ Page 3857 ]

good one:

"Jericho Hill School is in trouble. The powers that be in the Department of Education want to start decentralization of the programmes sending the deaf out to attend school in their own home school districts which, of course, we deaf adults, and experts in the field of deaf education, know won't work.

"We, the deaf, are given to understand that the department plans to then use the isolated buildings for the school of art. We've already lost one building, Tyler House, and a second is under renovation. We want to stop this."

Mr. Chairman, some of the letters I have regarding the conditions out there, in the midst of renovations, describe children in dormitories where there's plastic on the windows, a lack of bathroom facilities, and all the rest, Naturally they're able to reduce the numbers at Jericho Hill School. I am particularly interested in this subject because, you see, I had a niece and the parents of my little niece, who lived in Calgary, could not find - this is some years ago - an adequate facility.

Finally they found Jericho Hill School. They sent that child to Jericho Hill School; that child flowered. All her life she loved her family and wanted to be with them, but she loved it at Jericho Hill because she had people with whom she could communicate. For the first time in her life she had peers with exactly the same communication problem, and a large number of them - not the small number that you find in the community programme, but large enough numbers so that they could respond to one another and so they could socialize.

What happened to that child? That child, who is enormously handicapped, profoundly deaf, unable to function in society to that date, grew up and now teaches at the deaf university in the United States, Gallaudet College. She is really a participant in everything. She is a tremendously important person in our society who is able to give of herself because of what was given to her at Jericho Hill School. I think it is absolutely dreadful to see what I see going on at that school.

Mr. Chairman, decentralization of this particular problem is not correct. Now I am not suggesting that you should centralize to the extent that there is only one deaf school in B.C. I am suggesting, however, that we should have a centralized programme in areas of the province. What about Prince George, Kamloops and Vancouver?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE : You haven't got that and I am going to be dealing with that in a minute. The minister has said across the floor: "That's what we've got." I shall prove momentarily that it's not the case.

Mr. Chairman, there are somewhere between 200 and 300 profoundly deaf children in this province. It's very difficult to get the right number. One expert will tell you 200; another expert will tell you 300. But it doesn't really matter which it is. There's a significant number of profoundly deaf children in our province and we have to serve those children. I suggest to you one of the reasons for this minister's decentralized programme, which is to send them back to their school districts, is to dump the load for financing onto the school districts themselves. Make the school district pay the bill. Make the local taxpayers pay the bill as usual.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's unthinkable. They have taken kids out of there already who should not be out of there. They have made it uncomfortable in there for kids who should still be there but who are not by virtue of the fact that it is an uncomfortable place to be. It is death by attrition.

MR. GIBSON : They've made it hard to get in, too.

MR. COCKE : That's right, Where is the admissions committee?

I'd like to say this: it's death by attrition. They are going to make it so bad at Jericho that the parents are going to choose to send their children elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER : Why?

MR. COCKE : And why is that? I suggested why, and unless the minister has a very good reason other than the reason that I have suggested, it's just to dump the load - that is, the expense - on the local taxpayer as much as possible.

MR. GIBSON : He wants the real estate, too.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, I would wish that if the minister feels that it isn't a good idea to have deaf people in numbers so that they can socialize, then he should get in touch with Gallaudet College at Kendalgreen, Washington, and see what they think. Where are all his experts who are telling him, as he indicated in a recent press release, that the best way is decentralization? I agree with decentralization for virtually everything, but I don't agree with decentralization for this particular programme.

There are hardly any admissions and there is no admissions committee. If there is an admissions committee at Jericho, I want somebody to find it. I could not. And there certainly wasn't a few months ago when I checked. If they have set up an admissions committee, I want to hear about it. Mr. Chairman, this has become low priority in the Ministry of Education, and of all things it should be a high priority.

How much money are they saving? How much

[ Page 3858 ]

money are they saving with this new peculiar policy? I say that there has to be a service beyond that for those with a hearing impairment. Jericho has served that purpose because Jericho has been a fine school for those who have a multiple handicap, including deafness and blindness. I have nothing against the Vancouver school of fine arts. I want to see them get a location. I want to see them happy but I don't suggest for one second that I could possibly support downgrading of Jericho in favour of that particular programme.

Mr. Chairman, when Johnny doesn't learn to read and write and becomes emotionally unstable, who will be blamed under our present system? The poor old local school board again, if that's where he's had his training. Has the minister that kind of specialists' help that he can distribute those kinds of specialists to all the school, districts in the province? I suggest not, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that he has not that kind of help available in this province. The way you can get it together is to keep it together, and he's not doing that there.

I know that Jericho Hill students in the past have had a higher employment situation than the national average of kids graduating elsewhere. They have the highest results in terms of employment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to review this because I think it is so important. The chance for interaction of kids in a smaller community.... Don't forget that just because you put them with a large community in a major school doesn't mean that their community is a larger community. Their community is a smaller community. They have a better chance to react in that smaller community.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You have two minutes.

MR. COCKE : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should have started this earlier.

Just let me give you an example: in Richmond we have one boy and three girls; in Surrey You've got five young kids; in Maple Ridge you have four kids; in Chilliwack you have three girls and one boy in the community classes. That is what we are talking about. Those communities are too small for the children to interact. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if we continue to go in this direction the minister is making an irrevocable mistake.

I suggest that the decision is a political one. I say that Kamloops is going well; I'll agree with that. For one thing, you've got experts up there and service for those children. But don't tell me that Richmond and Surrey and those other areas are going well. Prince George can go well, and I agree that Kamloops is going well because you have the backup people in the area.

Mr. Chairman, another thing, too, is that Jericho Hill School is close to what the minister has always been very fond of, and that is UBC. It is close to all those experts as well. If you want to do a little bit of research and a little bit of good work, don't move it out to UBC, but let the UBC people get involved. Keep it on its own campus.

No, Mr. Chairman, I think we're going down the wrong track on this. I suggest that Jericho needs to be improved, not torn down; I suggest that people should be attracted, not dissuaded from sending their children to Jericho Hill. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if anything ever convinced me it was my own family experience with that school that nobody can tell me was wrong. I saw a person made into a very highly contributing person as a result of that school that that minister is trying to tear apart.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I will just try .and answer very quickly the points raised by the member. He talked about the trustees. I meet with them whenever they request. My door is open to the trustees just as it is to the B.C. Teachers Federation. The deputy has a meeting with both the trustees and the teachers on a regular basis once a month. Indeed, he has invited the trustees to attend personally, although so far they have only sent their officials.

When we correspond, we correspond usually with the secretary-treasurers of all the school districts. If the president of the local trustees' association would prefer to have the letters addressed to the president rather than the secretary-treasurer, that is quite agreeable with us. We would do it any way they preferred.

With respect to the provincial learning assessment programme, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) took a lot of credit for what she had started when she spoke. I don't begrudge that. We are just finally seeing that programme put in place fully. Therefore we are only following through on what that member herself was discussing yesterday. Yes, everybody in grades 4, 8 and 12 will be followed through, but that is our responsibility under the Public Schools Act and not something that can be determined at the local level.

There was that little bit of bucking in Sechelt. I find it interesting that the head of the school board there is a teacher in North Vancouver. Had he only pursued the policy of his own school district, it would have been unanimous instead of that one school district which, incidentally, changed its mind and decided they would administer the test.

With regard to finance, the Ministry of Education did far better in the budget this year than many other ministries of government. I thank my colleagues once again, as I have in the past, for being so considerate of the high priorities of education. We are experiencing considerable growth at the post-secondary level so it is only natural that the larger increases should go to those areas that are experiencing growth rather than

[ Page 3859 ]

in the K-to-12 programme where the population is j declining slightly.

So we've explained to local school districts that under circumstances where the district may even be shrinking in size - and certainly very, very few of them are growing - you can't expect your budget from the provincial government to grow at a more rapid pace than the overall budget of the ministry. We're already getting more than our share to cover those areas of education that are growing. Many ministries are actually experiencing a decline in their budget in order that Education could have so much.

If under the circumstances of constant or declining growth a local school district expects their budget to grow faster than the provincial economy, then they're going to have to find their own sources of revenue to cover it.

This is nothing that comes as any mystery to them or to the House or to the province because I've explained it many times in the past. For that member, Mr. Chairman, I'll explain again: local school districts cannot expect their budgets to grow more rapidly than the provincial budget. It's a static or declining situation. Other aspects of education are growing, and therefore have to be served just in terms of the numbers that are looked after. There are many other ministries of the provincial government that have legitimate programmes on behalf of the people that will require attention.

We are not limiting in any way what a local school district may wish to spend but they do have to look to their own sources of revenue.

The member asked whether we were converting to programme funding for local school districts. It's certainly something which has been considered by the ministry, but if you look at the line budget you will see that the main grant to school districts is just on a bulk-grant basis. Then they spend for their own programmes as they see fit.

We do have, of course, special programme funding for the French language policy, and I know that will be of very great interest to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who has this passion for federal affairs, for national unity. It's the passion for national unity.

MR. WALLACE : You mean you're not concerned about it?

HON. MR. McGEER : We all have a passion for national unity, but of course it's a question which varies according to your political persuasion. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano has his orientation toward national unity and how to achieve it. He's a very strong supporter of the Prime Minister, having once served as one of his executive assistants. No doubt he'll be back serving the Prime Minister again.

But that's not something which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, nor are his policies necessarily the only policies that will be successful in achieving this great goal of all good Canadians, namely national unity. I don't want to digress here lest I be accused of filibustering my own estimates.

MR. WALLACE : Heaven forbid!

HON. MR. McGEER : But the member has his views, and it's fairly evident that they're not entirely shared by the people of British Columbia, as the results of the last election will attest.

MR. WALLACE : You do believe in national unity, Pat, do you?

HON. MR. McGEER : I think we all do, Mr. Member, but as I say....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. That would have to be done under the proper vote.

HON. MR. McGEER : I would have to point out that Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, Mr. Chairman. I hope they will take that in the light spirit in which it's meant. Their national leaders both believe in this great goal of the Canadians to achieve national unity. In the House of Commons their national leaders don't sit quite as close together and they don't share quite the same views as to how this should be achieved. Indeed, if I interpret the speeches of these two gentlemen, I can tell you that they're a great deal farther apart in spirit than perhaps the two members who sit so close together now.

In any event, it is a digression. I was about to, I hope, say something that would be welcomed p particularly by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, and that is that we're hoping that some of the school districts in British Columbia will offer French immersion programmes in order that our B.C. residents will be able to find their place on the national scene and be linguistically equipped to make that great federal contribution that's going to be so necessary in the future.

Now the member raised again today the question with respect to the Boundary community school. I thought I had answered that yesterday but I'll just go over it again briefly. There was a meeting in my office in which the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , myself and representatives of the Boundary community school, the district of North Vancouver, the school board, and officials of the ministry met and discussed this question. Of course, as I explained yesterday, at issue was the large number of vacancies in the five schools that surrounded Boundary community school. It's

[ Page 3860 ]

not a question of people walking from the corner of the Boundary community school's schoolyard to some other school where there is a vacancy; it's a question of where you draw the line between the two jurisdictions.

This is simply a problem, Mr. Chairman, that has been encountered two or three times and which we're going to see very much more of in the future as populations decline and as schools become superfluous all over British Columbia. As they do, there are going to be some jurisdictional quarrels as to which school is going to get the students and which school will not.

The critical matter that needed to be decided at this particular meeting was whether the city of North Vancouver is going to open up an area which borders right on the school yard. If they do, then there's no question that sufficient population will come to that school to justify the complete expansion that they propose. If the representative from the city, rather than the district, had been there, we could have settled the question immediately. As it is, we'll be making a determination in a day or two.

The member said that there is a school freeze in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, last year I approved $140 million worth of school construction. That is $40 million higher than the highest previous year in history. This is at a time when school populations are relatively constant. Now if that's a school freeze, I can tell you it's the hottest freeze in history. Obviously there is going to be a phase when you get caught up if the school population is constant and when it looks as though a number of schools are becoming surplus. We closed one in Victoria just last year.

It's only reasonable to anticipate that that pace wouldn't be continued. Obviously we'd be gold-plating the washrooms if we were to continue at that rate. But I can assure the member that there's absolutely no freeze on, though you must have some common sense. Every little school wants to have something extra, whether the population is there to justify it or not. If we take a hard look at any project, like the Boundary School, it's merely on the basis of whether or not the students are going to be there to use the facilities after they're built.

Finally, the member referred to the Jericho Hill School. I want to say that few things have distressed me, as a minister, as much as the deaf wars that are continuing in that Jericho Hill School. I know that the former minister (Mrs. Dailly) had to listen to the deaf wars, too. I suspect they'll continue indefinitely. I look for no surcease or trace, but I do say that I very much admire and respect the people who we have in our own ministry for dealing with the problems of the handicapped. They are dedicated; they are extremely capable; they are experienced; they are specialists; they know their job; and they are the friends of the handicapped of British Columbia.

They are not necessarily the friends of the vested interests and, believe me, we have vested interests with respect to educating and looking after the communicatively impaired, just as with everything else. I've had the opportunity to visit some of the decentralized facilities in British Columbia and I can tell you that up in Prince George and Kamloops, which are two of the districts where we have classes for the deaf, we have absolutely superb facilities. The advantages of decentralization, I think, should be fairly obvious to all the members.

First of all, the youngsters are living in their own homes. They're not gathered together and being looked after by some matron or hard nurse; they're with their own families. That's the most important thing. It's part of the Berger commission report. You'll find it's going to apply to hospitals - any specialized facilities. You keep children in their homes. You don't take them out and gather them together at some centralized facility. It's better for the youngster to be able to live at home and for us to do everything we can to provide a facility so that he or she can live at home. That's the most important thing.

The second is that people who are deaf or blind have to make their adjustment and get by in society living among the majority of us who are fortunate enough to have hearing and vision. Therefore their adjustment to life is going to be very poor if they spend all their formulative years among other deaf or blind children. So whether we can accommodate them.... Yes, it's a little harder to be a deaf youngster in a school where the rest can hear, or where there are only a few deaf youngsters and everybody else can hear.

But I can tell you, just to use Kamloops as an example of a school that I visited many of the youngsters have learned the deaf language and those who are deaf and those with hearing play together at recess. They play together and get along together. The principal of that school knows the sign language, just because the youngsters are present. They're going to make a much better contribution because they've already made the adjustment, they're happy, they're enjoying life, they're learning, and they're living at home - all of those things.

Those reasons are the important ones. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that nobody in the provincial government begrudges spending, and spending generously, for these people. But if you look at a straight resource base, in a place like Jericho Hill School only 20 per cent of the money that's spent there is actually spent on teaching the youngsters. All the rest is in custodial care, which has really zero value to their adjustment in education. These are the reasons why you pursue a decentralized policy.

I would say for those who want to be partisan in

[ Page 3861 ]

this House on behalf of the vested interest.... There are some and I expect

that it will continue. As we had last year from the member for North Vancouver-Capilano

(Mr. Gibson) in several interviews in the paper, that sort of thing is going

on.

But I ask any of you: if you really have the interest of these youngsters seriously at heart, before you embark upon these things go and visit one or two of these places where the job is really being done well, as it is in Kamloops and Prince George.

Now we've never said that we're going to close Jericho school, nor

have we ever said that the decentralized programme will work for every single

youngster. But where it will work for them, that's the policy that's

been advised by very capable people in our own ministry, and the policy which

is being implemented. I am a strong supporter of that policy.

It's not just because I'm the minister trying to defend the civil service. It's on the basis of personal visits which I undertook for a variety of reasons, not just because it's my responsibility. It's of interest to me as a human being and as a physician. But I'm a strong supporter of the policy of decentralization. I think i it's correct and it's going to continue regardless of the deaf wars.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, I guess I couldn't be more disappointed - not with the way the minister replied, but with the crack he made about the vested interest. The only vested interest I have in this programme is one that's gone by a long, long time ago. I haven't got a deaf child in my family other than the one who went through that school and was served. I have no connection with any of the associations.

HON. MR. McGEER : We're not getting complaints from the parents, you know. The parents aren't complaining; they're thanking us.

MR. COCKE : "The parents are thanking us." Let me tell you

how the parents are thanking us. I'll go through some of the other things

he said. Mr. Chairman, this is a letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett):

"I'm sure you're not aware of this but I certainly hope that heads will roll."

Now that's a little rough.

"But I was absolutely dumbfounded when I arrived at Jericho

Hill School on Friday to pick up my child. Every window of the dorm of Lawrence

Hall had been removed. The east, s west, north and south sides of this dorm

had big sheets of plastic covering them with the odd piece of plywood stuck

here and there to hold the plastic in place. All the thermostats were set at

80 degrees . . . "

This is, incidentally, in January.

but the temperature was 55. The children, aged from 6 to 12, were staying in there in those conditions.

"Yes, it's true they moved the little girls to the boys' dorm. Was it safe to do so? Why have they locked windows and doors and paid for watchmen and men when they shove plastic up in the middle of winter?"

I can go through this letter, but that's the kind of letters that I get. I don't know what the minister gets.

HON. MR. McGEER : Do you want me to explain that?

MR. COCKE : Yes, Mr. Chairman, the minister should explain that.

HON. MR. McGEER : Public Works were doing some renovations of the building.

MR. COCKE : Mr. Chairman, the minister can explain in his own good time. I'm very, very interested in his answer. He talked in terms of decentralization; he talks about Prince George and Kamloops. I agree that that's where children should be - as close to their homes as possible. But he begs the question when he says the children should live in their own homes. What happens to a child in Vanderhoof? He has to come in and live at Prince George. He's away. The home situation is not applicable to the child who lives any great distance from the school, wherever it might be.

Now the minister can't tell me that he's going to have programmes going in every little hamlet in this province. He can't.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE : Yes. Is it five? I have the number here. The number is absolutely ridiculous.

The minister doesn't understand the problem, Mr. Chairman. He talks about custodial care. That really annoys me. It's during those hours when those children are together that they learn to socialize, and that prepares them for the time when they're going to have to be independent.

But let me describe to you what somebody said. This is a letter to Hon. Pat McGeer. It's in reply to your letter of September 3 to the Western Canada Association of the Deaf. They're very, very critical of the minister's position and they're very critical of some of the minister's people in his department. Let me read a few lines from this letter:

"It is interesting to note that when he was the superintendent of Jericho Hill School . . That is, Mr. Walsh.

. . . he wrote a letter to parents in June, 1971, about the feasibility

of local classes. He

[ Page 3862 ]

stated that those children will usually be hard of hearing rather than profoundly deaf, though some profoundly deaf children without standing lip-reading abilities can be educated in local schools. The tragedy to avoid is the lonely, little, bewildered deaf child desperately trying to get by in a totally unsuitable environment."

That's what I'm talking about: lonely, little, bewildered children in a totally unsuitable environment. I'm here to tell you that those five and six kids in Richmond and those four and five kids in other areas are lonely, little, bewildered children living in the wrong environment.

I'll never forget my niece and how much she loved her home, but how she loved to get back to that school so she could laugh and so she could talk. It was not custodial. She could talk with those other kids after hours. She had somebody that she could talk to all the time because they understood one another; they had the same problems.

I resent the vested interest. It's sure interesting to me that this same minister who is supporting Brentwood College, who's supporting Shawnigan Lake School, who's supporting St. George's, York House and a number of other live-in situations for children who are not in any way in need of assistance because of their disabilities can turn his back on children who should be together.

No, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't make sense, I suggest that those children need a little bit more thought from the minister. MR. Chairman, I think I've said all I want to say on this subject, because I feel very strongly about it. If the minister doesn't understand, that's on his head.

MR. WALLACE : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to change the subject. I don't want this to sound hysterical, but I want to ask the minister if there isn't a serious enough incidence of parents questioning the system enough that he should. immediately set about investigating the so-called guidance classes in the public school system.

I don't want to get into a debate on semantics, so before we go any further I would hope that whatever my comments withdraw from the minister, we stick to demonstrated fact, whatever terminology or fancy words I might quote from people who are defending a position which I think is very weak.

The education system in British Columbia has recently had a lot of focus on the need to return to basics and to have a modern, appropriate core curriculum. With that I heartily agree. I hope the minister produces just such a modern, appropriate core curriculum.

I've received letters not just from one school or one school district but from various parts of the province. In my view, if we can talk about prima facie cases, the evidence is there to suggest that in many school districts so-called guidance classes, which I understand are compulsory up to grade 11, are getting seriously off the track.

They're invading the privacy of parents who are left in ignorance as to some of the questions that their children are being asked in these guidance classes to the extent that I sometimes wonder whether these classes and the staff responsible think they're running a school or a mental health clinic. So that I won't be accused of generalizing, exaggerating or being inaccurate, let me quote just one particular communication I had, dated March 22,1977, from a group of parents in Enderby. This particular group write to me:

"Enclosed you will find a questionnaire which was given to our students at the A.L. Fortune Secondary School in Enderby. As these types of questions are very hard to get hold of since they are kept from parents - and when we did approach the teacher about this questionnaire, she gave us another one - this one was finally secured and we have managed to erase the name of the student. This has to be done because we have found that most teachers are very hostile and miserable when a parent approaches them as to just what they are teaching. I myself have had problems with teachers as a result of my questioning, prodding and general concern about this.

"So it is very difficult for any parent to openly ridicule or question a teacher. Our children in school are then made subject to very nasty and mean innuendoes. All of a sudden, children of parents who question the school system and methods and the materials being used are 'problem children.'

"It would seem that if you're a parent who does question the professionals, then you are labelled a troublemaker, paranoid and radical. So you can see it is a very futile job and one that becomes increasingly worse as time goes on. So we do hope that this type of teaching will be discontinued."

I'll be reading from the material in a moment, Mr. Chairman, but to go on with this parent's letter:

"As you can see, these questions are prying, snooping and very definitely none of the teacher's business. One wonders, since they are apparently not marked on this, why then are they being asked those stupid questions? We don't know just how much this will help, but we do hope that it may bring some light to those sitting in very dark corners."

The particular material which this parent acquired and which had been used in this class in Enderby.... I'll just quickly read off the kinds of areas which the child is asked to respond to.

[ Page 3863 ]

Under the heading, "Success": "Do you believe that hard work leads to success and wealth? Is that kind of wealth worth striving for?"

Under the heading of "Happiness" - and this question is rather ironic for me to be saying today -it says: "Do you believe your father is happy in his job?" It's quite obvious that I've answered that question last week. Seriously, Mr. Chairman, this surely does leave a parent begging the question that their child in guidance classes should be asked this kind of question.

Under the heading of "Money": "Does your family have enough money?"

Next question: "What would be the ideal income for you?"

"How much do you realistically expect to make?"

I just want to be as quick as I can and give quick examples of a cross-section of the subjects. Mr. Chairman, you'll be very interested in this.

Under "Religion" the child is asked: "Is religion important to you? Do you find more spiritual benefit in nature or in fellowship than in going to church? Would it upset your parents if you married someone (

a) from a different religion or (

b) a different race?"

Now I could go on and on; there are four or five pages and many of the questions are of this nature, What I am wishing to know from the minister is, first of all, whether this kind of practice, regardless of the title you put on it or how many school districts are doing this - regardless of these arithmetical facts ... is he not concerned that there should be some more definitive outline of what the schools are supposed to be doing or not doing? I have exactly the same kind of communication from a parent in Nanaimo.

They formed a group because of their concern about a programme in that district called "Steps to Maturity." They formed a Concerned Parents Committee. One of the persons who doesn't mind having his name attached is Dr. James Benoit, who has written to me at some length and asked me to raise this matter. I understand he sent the material to the minister and was given some general assurance that the matter was being looked into.

The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the degree to which this happens and the degree to which parents are having their privacy invaded are important enough so that this is an urgent matter. I am asking the minister if he's not going to do something about it, not at his convenience or not after he's looked after ICBC, but right now. Dr. Benoit makes the statement:

"A group of people called the Concerned Parents Committee have banded together to protest what they know is an obscure and ambiguous programme presently in use in this district. From our research into the publications, films and teaching exercises presently in use by the Steps to Maturity personnel, we have overwhelmingly concluded that it is a direct invasion of our home and religious principles."

The brief, dated June of this year, outlines the fact that t h e concerned parents of the Ladysmith-Nanaimo district met with members of the school board and with Dr. Reynolds of Public Health to present their concerns regarding this programme. Of course, again, time doesn't allow me to go into all the specifics and I want to make a certain general statement, But the seven major areas in this programme of Steps to Maturity involve tremendous emphasis on feelings, value training, death and dying, communications workshop, qualifications of teachers and volunteers teaching this programme, sex education and finances.

I just want to emphasize again one or two fundamental points in relation to not only the invasion of parental privacy, but to the question -what are our schools supposed to be accomplishing? Nobody denies that there are many kids with emotional problems, many children with difficulties in adjustment and children with problems at home which impair their capacity to function at school. Nobody denies that and I don't deny the wisdom of having counselling available to children. What seems to me to be very unusual is the particular direction in which many of these programmes are oriented.

I just quote as an example the situation in Nanaimo, where the parents emphasize the great amount of attention placed upon feelings as a guide to living. The purpose of the emphasis, according to these parents, seems to be to get the child to accept himself by accepting his feelings, whether they're good or bad, and to accept all feelings as being normal and okay for anybody to have.

The activity manual for kindergarten to grade 3 states that a child should be encouraged to express his resentments to the teacher and to the other students and that the discussion of such an individual's feelings should never be used to teach and manipulate children into appropriate ways of behaving. The continual emphasis upon feelings, especially in regard to the "circle-sharing sessions" in the small groups, places a child in a position where lie is almost forced to divulge his feelings and get them out into the open just for the sake of discussion.

In many cases they would be feelings that a child might well be better off to keep to himself. And this goes on through many of these headings I have already mentioned, such as value training and material on death and dying, and it goes into some detail - and they are not the concern of the Nanaimo parents - about the qualifications of the teachers who are utilizing this kind of material.

There was another series of complaints brought forward by parents in Burnaby. I might just digress for a moment to say that I would like the minister to answer another question regarding ministry

[ Page 3864 ]

procedure, because I wrote to the two principals of the two schools concerned and they wrote back and told me that 1 would get a satisfactory answer from the superintendent. 1 got the most pedantic, circumlocutory answer from the superintendent. 1 am just wondering if, in this so-called free society, when 1 write and ask information from a principal of a school as an MLA, I am not entitled to get an answer from the principal, rather than being directed to his superior, the superintendent. You don't have to ask your deputy, Mr. Minister, and have a little muttering behind his elbow. Tell me.

Do you believe that a principal should not answer when 1 ask a question as important as the invasion of privacy of parents?

I want to read into the record the kind of answer I got from the superintendent, as well as the answers from the principals. I'm not even disputing or arguing about the particular validity of this complaint in this situation. But 1 won't mention names at this point.

"Dear Sir:

"This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 1,1976. In answer to your request 1 would like to refer you to the correspondence Dr. Froese, superintendent, Burnaby School District, made with you on November 30. 1 believe the information and the materials contained therein fulfil your request." There's no direct comment, opinion, suggestion, argument or criticism - nothing from the principal to whom I have written a two-page letter, including the letter of complaint from the parent. 1 get a very verbose letter full of big words from the superintendent which, in a sense, doesn't even deny the charge.

It just says that things didn't happen in the manner that the parent alleged them to have happened. I won't take up the time to read the other principal's letter, which is basically the same, except that the second principal says: "If you are ever in this area and care to visit such and such a school, you will be more than welcome."

But I get a letter from the superintendent who says:

" In the first place 1 would want to ensure that no such

instances as those cited by Mrs. X, the parent, occur in the manner that she

alleges. Secondly, at the time when our schools are increasingly faced with

emotional trauma, behaviour problems and an increasing number of students from

disrupted and unstable home conditions, the demands upon our counselling and

guidance staff are so severe that I would hope that positive and effective guidance

counselling techniques not be compromised by misunderstanding and suspicion."

I'm not talking, Mr. Chairman, about the kids from disturbed homes. I'm talking about normal kids from normal homes like the one in Enderby. She didn't go looking for advice from a counsellor because she came from a disturbed home. She got asked whether her father was happy in his job. She's a normal, happy, healthy kid who is compelled to take guidance classes. Now where is the system going?

Furthermore, for the disturbed kids I have to ask the question: is our system an education system or is it a combined system of mental health and social corrections and all kinds of social services? That really is the nub of the question, Mr. Chairman. Just what does our system of education intend to try and fulfil in, admittedly, a more and more complicated world where there is more social breakdown and where there are family disruptions which affect the child's education? But is it the role of the school to try and solve these problems?

Even if it were, should we not have a greater degree of control over the so-called guidance material that's being put before children who don't have emotional problems and whose parents are quite happy with the home situation and where the kids are perfectly adjusted? Why should guidance-class material be poking its nose into whether my kids think that their parents would be annoyed if they married someone of another faith or another colour?

I think that the school system, in regard to this particular subject of guidance, is seeking to accomplish a purpose which might be well worthwhile, but what I am suggesting is that school is not the vehicle. Secondly, if it is to be a vehicle of some kind, let's have it certain that the parents know the material the child will be exposed to and let's have parental consent. It is no different from the other issue we talked about the other day of medical records and the idea that some senior civil servant has the authority to provide medical records without consent of the person most affected by these records.

I could talk at great length about the material that has come across my desk in recent months. I'm just saying that the minister should determine, by a proper investigation - and now, not next month or next year - to what degree this kind of material is being used in a variety of school districts. Secondly, I would like to know whether or not there are adequate protections for the parents in being given access to the content of the material and the opportunity either to give or not to give written consent.

Thirdly, to what degree, in the light of these points I have mentioned, does the minister feel that the qualifications and guidelines for those teachers who are given this responsibility are adequate? Are there any guidelines?

I think perhaps it is important enough that I should mention that many of the questions that were put in the questionnaire in the Burnaby case were rather similar and along the same lines as the one in Enderby that I quoted. Although the superintendent in Burnaby denies that they were posed in a certain manner - and let's not even get into arguing who is

[ Page 3865 ]

right on that - the superintendent sent me a copy of the material which the principal was using. Much of the material again seems to deal with feelings, developing a "self" concept, and seeing oneself as a beginning adult. There are questions under the heading "pupil interest inventory" about relationships. They cover such matters as whether or not the child likes his father and mother. What has all this to do with education? If some child has a problem in his or her parental relationship, should the school system consider that as one of its primary responsibilities?

I have also got communications here from North Vancouver, and I'm sure the Liberal leader probably received the same communication back in March of this year, where another parent found that her nine-year-old daughter was put into counselling sessions with disturbed children because her child was considered to be normal and could probably provide some kind of benefit to the disturbed children. The mother came to the conclusion that her child was some kind of guinea pig in what was called counselling but which, in some sense, seems to me to go far beyond that and involve medical ramifications, whether you want to call it psychotherapy or whatever.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

This mother was not consulted ahead of time or given any opportunity to consider whether this was good, bad or otherwise for her child, even if it might benefit the disturbed children with whom she was put.

Here again, the rights of the parents, I think, are being seriously eroded. We talk about the importance of the individual having access to government information, and that's important enough, but I think it is a great deal more important, if we believe in individual rights in society, that parents should have some very clear assurance from this Minister of Education, or any Minister of Education, that where matters of the nature that I have been outlining for the House are concerned, the very least is that the parents should be consulted ahead of time and given the right to agree or disagree.

I would suggest there is also a lack of opportunity for the parent to appeal whatever decisions have been made in providing this kind of guidance or counselling, or whatever it is to be called.

In the case of the North Vancouver situation, when the mother enquired she was told that this was an innovative counselling programme which her daughter was involved in, as I say, without any prior knowledge or consent. When she complained about so-called "group counselling, " the terminology was then changed to say it was a matter of teaching communication skills.

Secondly, with regard to counselling per se, which is required and should be part of school services, is it being done with sufficient definition by the Ministry of Education as to guidelines, qualifications of the staff providing the counselling and the assurance to parents that they are adequately consulted, given a chance to become aware of the material that's being used and given the opportunity to give consent or not give consent?

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I had planned to restrain myself from further intervention in this debate until my laryngitis abated but this minister exercises me so with the things that he says across the floor of this House that I have to stand up again.

You often learn a lot about members of the executive council by the way in which they use little words in passing. You recall when the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) referred to seniors joy-riding on the ferries. You recall some of the remarks of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . Well, today we have that kind of an internal slip of the tongue being a revelation by the Minister of Education when he gave us his contemptuous description of the concerned people of Jericho school talking about the "deaf wars." Those are the words he used - the "deaf wars."

These are people who are concerned enough about their children or about themselves to push this minister and his staff in ways that may be vexing and embarrassing to them, but to push them in terms of the problems of the people at Jericho Hill School. What does he refer to it as? "Deaf wars"! I think it says a lot about that minister, Mr. Chairman. I'll come back later on to this simplistic statement of his about Jericho Hill School because he's got entirely the wrong approach. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has the right approach.

It's a question of a community for people who have difficulties that some of us do not. The minister can see; the minister can hear-1 the minister can speak.

[ Page 3866 ]

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard) : He can't understand.

MR. GIBSON : Yes, he can understand, Madam Member, when be talks about the deaf wars and when he talks about people who have the nerve to be concerned about these kinds of things.

Mr. Chairman, I'll come back to that when I have my notes in the House. Right now I want to talk about one of the most blatant cases of personal patronage that's been revealed in this House in many years. That is the question of the Torresan advertising contract for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a contract with a value to the agency of something like $75,000. A contract was issued very recently by the board of directors without the recommendation of the management in a way that runs against government policy.

I want to say first of all what government policy is, as reported in the information services review and recommendation prepared by David Brown, special adviser to the Premier, reporting in September of last year. The essence of it all had been - and very properly -competition in the award of advertising contracts for Crown departments, agencies and corporations.

I'll quote from the report:

"In recognition of the need to improve the level of sophistication and professionalism associated with the communication of government programmes, measures have been taken to encourage advertising agencies in the province to enter into competition for government accounts."

Later on in the report, Mr. Brown has something to say about tenure once a report has been awarded. I quote again: ". . . tenure on provincial government assignments be a three-year term subject to yearly performance appraisal." That was an industry recommendation, of which Mr. Brown says as follows:

"It is recommended that these industry proposals serve as a basis for the approach to advertising. The three-year tenure indicated will ensure that agencies do not hold on to accounts involving the use of public funds for a protracted period of time. But there should be an open competition at the end of this time rather than a simple decision to re-appoint."

Well, Mr. Chairman, in this case, not only was the three-year tenure not anything like achieved, not was the contract terminated for lack of performance after a review, nor was there an open competition. There was a simple appointment of one of the minister's pals.

AN HON. MEMBER : His brother-in-law?

MR. GIBSON : He's one of the minister's pals. I'll describe a bit more about him later.

Now let's consider if a new agency were to be appointed, how did Mr. Brown suggest that it should be done? First of all, he gives a number of criteria of which I will select some. He speaks of account lists. He says an agency is a reflection of the type of clients it services. I wish the minister would table a list of the clients serviced by the new advertising firm for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Mr. Brown mentions growth. He said: "While growth hides weaknesses as

well as strength, a two- to five-year growth pattern reflects momentum and success

and allows an agency to attract better people." Now, Mr. Chairman, the

advertising programme of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is not

a small programme. It is one of the major accounts in the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Brown recommends that growth be looked at as criterion. How many

people were members of the Torresan Advertising Agency at the time that contract

was awarded? There were three: Mr. Torresan, a publicist and a secretary. That

doesn't seem exactly to conform to the pattern of growth that is stated

government policy out of the Premier's office.

Another criterion is strength in key service areas: "An agency needs to

have strength in creative media account handling and research." In fact,

Mr. Chairman, the agency which the minister has just brought in because his

pal owns it and heads it up is an agency which has a publicist, which has a

part-time writer, and which habitually in the past has contracted out most of

its creative work. The criteria are not met.

So what has the history been of this particular business? The agency that last had the contract won it by competition last summer with eight other firms, properly following the process that the government had laid down - or was to lay down in one month -of competition, at the end of the first fiscal year that they were working, which is to say February 28. They continued and got four months into the current fiscal year. They served on multiple projects which were all ongoing and then, all of a sudden, it was chopped.

The ICBC has given the excuse that they were simply changing projects - that the Torresan firm had been involved in another project and that these projects were completed, so they were just changing projects. That's absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is that the previous agency was deeply involved in continuing projects for the ICBC and they were chopped by the minister.

How was that done? It was done with no competition, which is a slap in the face both to ethics and to government policy. It was not done by management; it was done by the board of directors, advised and ordered by that minister, which is a slap in the face at the ethics of that corporation. Why was

[ Page 3867 ]

it done? Who is Ray Torresan? Well, now Ray Torresan is a nice enough guy. I know him. He is more popular than the minister. The minister, you may know, is not very popular with his caucus these days because of the trouble he's getting them into. He's about as popular as the kid whose mother had to tie a bone around his neck to get his dog to play with him. (Laughter.) He's caused that government more trouble in recent months than you can believe, and now he's into another one.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : Yes, that's because he's humble. He's just a humble guy trying to do a job.

MR. GIBSON : But Ray Torresan didn't get his work because he's a nice guy, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER : Let them eat bones. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON : He pulled a real boner this time. Ray Torresan is a nice guy, but that's not why he got the work. He got the work because he's an old pal of the minister. He got the work because he needed the work. That's a good enough reason, isn't it, with the unemployment in B.C.?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : Jobs for the boys.

MR. GIBSON : It is not a good enough reason, but it's a good enough reason for this minister.

MR. LEA : Is he a son-in-law of anyone?

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I say to you that this is an unusual cancellation of a contract which, under government policy, would have had over another year and a half to run unless the work was unsatisfactory. If the minister will stand up in this House and tell us the work is unsatisfactory, then we can get into that question, but failing that it would have had another year and a half to run under government policy.

It's a contract that was changed without competition, which is government policy, when the previous contract holder has been in competition with eight other people, a contract that was changed without any recommendation from the management of ICBC. Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you what that is: it is rancid, stinking, personal patronage.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, a more temperate use of words would perhaps be in order.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, a more temperate sort of action on the part of that government would be more in order too, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

That action alone is grounds alone for saying that that minister should be fired. He should be sent back to studying brains to learn that the average voter isn't quite as stupid as he thinks they are. This is a despicable action and I challenge him to stand up and defend any of these things in one scintilla.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, I think the first thing I have to do is absolutely correct the record. Torresan agency has no contract with ICBC.

MR. GIBSON : Neither did the former person. You're shilly-shallying with words. They're the advertising agency.

HON. MR. McGEER : That's quite true - nor did Catton agencies. The member is correct in one thing, which is that in July of last year, nine agencies were asked to present to ICBC their expertise with respect to services they might be able to offer the corporation in the months and years ahead. Some agencies, and Torresan agency was among them, were asked to offer further submissions in September of last year. Of course, what is one agency's strength is another agency's weakness.

On a month-to-month basis, the agency was hired by ICBC, particularly to do work as a result of the retirement of one of the public relations people in the corporation. It's quite true that that monthly arrangement was terminated and it's also true that the Catton agency was very disappointed that that arrangement was terminated. It was simply because ICBC no longer had need for the particular expertise of that agency. We have taken on no other agency, either for a large contract or on a month-to-month basis.

What has been done, Mr. Chairman, is that the Torresan agency has been asked to submit further creative work, which they have done, for the corporation. I can't tell you at this time the extent to which any of that might be used.

I want to make this quite clear, and I think perhaps it's time that a general statement was made, Mr. Chairman, because I've seen again and again columnists and newspaper efforts at scandal on behalf of ICBC, starting first with the towers, then with the insurance agents, then with the bodyshop operators and with all kinds of individuals that like to do business with ICBC. When it isn't quite as comfortable and as profitable as they like, then of course they go complaining to members and to the press.

But I can assure you that ICBC is a fairly tough organization to work for. We don't arrange generous contracts with anybody and we don't offer long-term contracts to advertising agencies. It's as simple as that, Mr. Chairman, and I think that the member has made many false charges this afternoon. This is just

[ Page 3868 ]

another one of the false charges that you see.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I would be glad if the minister would specify which charges he considers to be false.

HON. MR. McGEER : Well, that Torresan advertising agency has a contract with ICBC, that it was despicable patronage, that there's a $75,000 contract. All of these things are utterly false, Mr. Chairman. The Torresan advertising agency has no contract with ICBC. It was one of the nine firms that submitted its expertise to the corporation last year. I suppose we could ask every few months for nine agencies to offer to the corporation their strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps that will be done again. But it has been done in the past.

We're aware of what agencies have to offer. The advertising agency business is very competitive and I suppose winning contracts is a lucrative and desirable thing. But we've awarded no contracts in ICBC. I have no complaint about the work the Catton agency did. The members can judge whether the public relations for ICBC this past few months have been good or bad, but I will say this: the Catton agencies considered that they were the agency of record and for some reason thought they had a long-term contract, which they didn't. We have only hired any outfit on the basis of a month-to-month contract and that's all the Catton was hired for.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, the minister is playing with words. The fact of the matter is that Ray Torresan is now the advertising agency of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. He says: "We've taken on no other agency." Those were his words.

I want to ask him this question. If the Torresan agency does about the same amount of work, even, say, half as much in the next 12 months as the previous agency did in the last 12 months, will the minister resign? If he answers that question with yes, I'll sit down right now, Mr. Chairman. He just has to yell that across the floor of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER : He is the Premier.

MR. GIBSON : Sometimes it seems he is the Premier. 1 don't know.

Mr. Chairman, the minister can be assured that it's not on account of any representations. I can't say about the press, but 1 can say to this member that it's a case that the reports in the press have given such a clear expression that this whole business smells that I'm just very disappointed the minister would stand up in this House and try and cover his seeking to do a favour for a friend with smokescreens of arm-waving false charges.

The fact of the matter is that the minister has been caught in another one of his arrogant moves, perhaps to his astonishment or perhaps not. I don't know. A member of the press has blown the whistle and then he finds some grounds for surprise when members bring it up in this House.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, 1 can only reiterate what I said before. I think the member is quite properly backing off. He's made false charges and he knows it. Once again, he's relying on a columnist who really has come to the defence of everybody who has had an objection with the corporation.

As 1 said, we went through it with the towers. 1 might add that in each of these instances the officials of the corporation were warned that if they didn't do certain things to keep people happy they were going to go to the press, and they find willing allies in the press. The towers have done it; the agents have done it. Sure, I'm fed up with it. But 1 again reiterate, as far as advertising agencies are concerned, the corporation listened to nine agencies a year ago, long before any government guidelines were issued. They selected one agency to do some work on a month-to-month basis, mostly because there's a vacancy within the corporation itself.

Now if the corporation seeks to take some creative work from some of the other presentations that were made at that time, then 1 would think the corporation is quite properly doing that. They might wish at some time to go through the same exercise of having 9, 12, 20 or 50 agencies doing the same thing. But what is the member suggesting: that every three or four months ICBC should have an open competition among 20 agencies? Clearly that's preposterous!

Mr. Chairman, I can only say once more that the corporation is going to be a very tough corporation to deal with. It's going to be fair. But I suspect all those who wish to do business with the corporation, and finding disappointment at not getting what they might consider to be a lucrative contract, will go and find a willing ear in the press about some scandal or other. We've been through it with the whole gamut of people who do business with ICBC and probably we will go through it all again. But 1 can just tell you this: the corporation is going to be tough but fair.

[ Page 3869 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. GIBSON : The minister asks what the member is suggesting. I'll tell you what the member is suggesting. He's suggesting that government policy be followed. The government policy says quite simply that where there is a case of a reappointment or not, there should be an open competition. That's very clear; that is government policy.

This minister, through his Crown corporation, through his board - not the management - has evaded that. He talks about agencies being upset if they don't get what they want out of the government. He implies that everything is on the up and up, and this is just a decision of the company. If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister whether he will submit to an impartial audit of this case by the Advertising Agency Association of British Columbia, who are the people who proposed the standards that the government has largely accepted in the Brown report. Surely he would be willing to submit this case to that council if he really thinks he has a case.

But he doesn't have a case, Mr. Chairman. It was patronage. The minister says this member is backing off. This member is not backing off one bit. The minister is backing off. I asked him to stand up in this House and say he will resign if the Torresan agency gets more than at least half what the last agency got in the next 12-month period. I asked him to do that. The minister backed off.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would offer to resign right now if I said no.

MR. GIBSON : I'll sit down right now. You, of course, have the control of that within your own hands.

HON. MR. McGEER : Do you want to resign your seat? I'll make the bet.

MR. GIBSON : No, sir. It's you who has the control and you are the person who must give the answer. Will you answer that question? Will you resign?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Will you kindly address the Chair, hon. member?

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, this minister said: "Well, this isn't a very important appointment. It may or may not continue." I'm just saying, okay, put your money where your mouth is. If that's what you believe, if those are your intentions, then make that commitment to this Legislature or else stand convicted as a person who has indulged in a despicable act of personal patronage, as far as I'm concerned.

This minister has been wrong before, and sensationally wrong. Do you recall how we heard that ICBC wasn't going to make any money with those new rates? Remember that? Remember that some members of this House predicted that it might be even somewhere up close to $100 million in excess revenue that those new rates might bring in? And what was it - around $70 million to $75 million. The minister said: "Oh, pooh, pooh. There's nothing to that."

This minister, Mr. Chairman, as I've said before, is just arrogant enough to believe that what he does is right and what he does he can get away with. But I'm telling you, the people of British Columbia will only stand so much smell in their nostrils from this kind of patronage thing. This is one more thing this government has done.

HON. MR. McGEER : I just have one question for the member - I've given the answers - and that is: is he prepared to resign his seat if his charges are false? Answer that question.

MR. GIBSON : What part of it? That's a frivolous~ question. You be specific.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please address the Chair. Order, please. Please, could we have a little more decorum in the House. I believe only one person can speak at a time, and I recognize the hon. Minister of Education replying to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

HON. MR. McGEER : The member has made some charges, among them that there is a contract with the Torresan agency. I just say to him: is he prepared to resign if his charges are false?

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I said there's an arrangement with the Torresan agency which the minister now plans to be of a continuing nature and which he is trying to tell this House is just a casual kind of thing that might go on or not. I asked him a very clear question. If the Torresan agency over the next 12 months makes at least half as much as the last agency made over the last 12 months, will he resign? He's backing off. That's because he knows he has every intention that the Torresan agency is the main agency of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

He is backing and filling and twisting and turning and doing his best to cover with a smokescreen the embarrassing situation he has been

[ Page 3870 ]

found in. But he is in that situation.

I asked him another question. Would he accept an audit by the Advertising Agency Association of British Columbia, the 25-member council which submitted the major recommendations with respect to an advertising agency code of ethics, which Mr. Brown accepted on behalf of the province of British Columbia, which now governs the departments of the province of British Columbia?

The minister didn't answer that question. Do you know why not? Because he knows that if he did, they would uncover just exactly what that situation was. So there we are. I state my charge; I repeat my charge: it is an appointment of patronage. The people of British Columbia know it, and I don't like it.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Chairman, I can only say what I've said before, namely that the corporation interviewed some nine agencies a few months ago, long before those guidelines came out. The exercise he suggests has already been gone through by the corporation.

Now he's made charges. He says there's a contract, that Torresan agency is going to make thousands and thousands of dollars out of ICBC.

MR. GIBSON : I didn't say there was a contract.

HON. MR. McGEER : I merely say: is he prepared to resign his seat if those charges are false, which they are?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we continue, we're here to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Education, and that certainly refers to ICBC. However, it is not a debate as to whether one member will resign or one member will not resign. Kindly get down to the issues at hand, if you will. The Chair is not here to instruct you, hon. member, in that respect.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, the minister is trying to make this whole thing turn on the question as to whether or not there is a contract. That's not the question. There is an arrangement. I'm asking the minister to tell this House that the arrangement is such that it will not lead to the Torresan agency being at least half as well remunerated as the last one was over the next 12 months, or else say that it will - one way or the other.

The real issue is whether or not that appointment is an appointment of patronage. I stand by that 100 per cent, and I'll meet the minister on any platform in this province to discuss it.

MS. BROWN : On this particular vote, my colleague from Victoria has convinced me that he has material to add, specifically dealing with the Torresan issue. He's asked that 1 defer to him and so I would like to defer to the second member for Victoria.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria) : May 1 thank my colleague from Burrard? 1 just have a few questions for the minister, who no doubt wishes at the moment there were a stranger in the House named Torresan.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order. Continue with your line of debate.

MR. BARBER : What was out of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN : There are no strangers in this House at the present time other than the two representatives of the Ministry of Education. Please continue.

MR. BARBER : What 1 said, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN : 1 understand what you said. Please continue.

MR. BARBER : 1 will. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Hon. minister would care to tell us about his relationship with Mr. Torresan over the years. I wonder if he might care to tell us about Mr. Torresan's work for the Non-Partisan Association, a civic organization in the city of Vancouver, and his own connection with the gentleman. And the minister might as well tell us....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, we're discussing the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Education, not the NPA or any other association.

MR. BARBER : Quite so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please continue.

MR. BARBER : What I'm inquiring about is the historic relationship between this minister and, indeed, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) .

MR. CHAIRMAN : We're discussing this minister, hon. member.

MR. BARBER : That's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN : 1 must ask you to confine your remarks to this minister.

MR. BARBER : My questions deal, Mr. Chairman, with the interesting personal relationship that appears to have developed over the years between Mr. Torresan who is now the beneficiary of at least one of

[ Page 3871 ]

ICBC's decisions, and the minister himself - and-, as an aside, two of his colleagues.

HON. MR. MeGEER : Do you want me to answer that?

MR. BARBER : I'll pursue it, if 1 may, with a couple of specific questions.

AN HON. MEMBER : Nepotism! Favouritism!

MR. BARBER : 1 wonder if the minister might specifically tell us whether or not....

AN HON. MEMBER : Patronage incarnate!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Your colleagues are interrupting you, Hon. member. Please continue.

MR. BARBER : 1 wonder if the minister might indicate whether or not he and, indeed, his former Liberal - now Socred - colleagues received in approximately the third week of September, 1975, a letter and some advice from Mr. Torresan about the defection process which was then in the process of occurring from the Liberal to the Social Credit parties of the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, 1 fail to see where this has anything.... On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert) : 1 think it's quite within the jurisdiction of this committee to find out whether or not there has been patronage within the minister's jurisdiction. It's quite within order. And 1 believe that if any member of this House can prove that there is patronage, then it is within the jurisdiction of this committee to look at that. It is not out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the Chair is not disputing that. We are merely asking that the present speaker relate his remarks to the present administrative duties of the Minister of Education and not to something that has happened that has nothing whatsoever to do with this vote, and 1 have so ordered.

MS. BROWN : He has made patronage part of his duties.

MR. BARBER : Mr. Chairman, my questions are about the relationship between the minister - indeed between the minister and a couple of his colleagues -and Mr. Torresan. It seem reasonable to me, when examining the allegations made by the hon. Liberal leader about the present relationship between the minister and Mr. Torresan - the minister in his role as being responsible for ICBC - to ask about the previous relationship. It is clear to any person who would look at it that the relationship has been continuing and abiding over a period of time.

It is clear, when examining the charges, that it's reasonable to ask about the origins and the content of that. If there has been a relationship over a period of time, is it not logical to ask to what extent that relationship does apply at this time? And further, to what extent might that relationship be benefiting Mr. Torresan himself? So, Mr. Chairman, if it's permissible, my question is whether or not the minister recalls receiving - I'm informed it was in approximately the third week of September, 1975 -a letter and advice from Mr.

Torresan of Torresan Rose Marketing Communications Ltd., with a copy to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bennett. The letter advised the then three Liberal members - the now Attorney-General, Minister of Labour and Minister of Education - about how they should get in touch with the Social Credit organization, and how, indeed, they might want to start campaigning with one Bill Bennett in the towns of Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Terrace, Nanaimo and some other city, and appear on the same platform with him, thereby proving all the greater their conversion to Social Credit.

If the minister recalls anything'like such advice and such a letter, I wonder if he would tell the House whether or not he accepted the advice. Did they join the Social Credit Party, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the minister could tell us.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, anything that happened regarding the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) before this member became a minister of the Crown - the Minister of Education - is not relevant and I so order.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan) : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, in determining the relationship between a minister of the Crown and an organization which is bidding for rewards under his jurisdiction, it is quite permissible to explore that relationship. It has never been the practice of this House to restrict that line of debate to the current situation, but rather to determine what that relationship has been over a historic period of time. I appreciate the Chairman's concern, but there are those who would find that the Chair is bordering on interfering with the free debate in this House.

I'm sure the Chair would not want to give that impression. This is an important matter in terms of determining the relationship that exists between the minister and an agency which has gained reward from the government by a decision of that minister. In terms of finding out whether or not there is anything

[ Page 3872 ]

illicit in terms of the relationship and the awarding of that contract, it's absolutely essential to explore the historic relationship of the two.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre) : I would like to reinforce the comments made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan to the Chairman. There is no dispute in this committee, insofar as the minister has control over ICBC and has great power, particularly over the expenditures of his ministry and that very large Crown corporation, that opposition members are indeed entitled - I should say responsible - for bringing out any actions on the part of this minister that can be interpreted by the public as being patronage, mismanagement, favouritism or inequality of some kind and so on. That is the responsibility of the opposition.

I'll wait until the Clerk is finished. I'm not in the habit of speaking to the Chairman on a point of order while there is another conversation going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, hon. member. Just state your point of order.

MR. LAUK : If the Clerk is finished....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, would you kindly state your point of order?

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, 1 am about to state my point of order.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca) : State it!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : 1 appreciate that some of the Social Credit members are a little bit upset, and rightly so. I think they should be upset ...

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, 1 will caution all members of this House to allow the member to state his point of order.

MR. LAUK : ... because no other government in the history of this province has degraded public office to the extent that this government has!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order!

MR. LAUK : No other government!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : They should be upset!

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, take your seat, please.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Hon. member, you rose on a point of order, and the Chair is perfectly prepared to hear your point of order. Please continue on the point of order.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. KEMPF : Muckraker! Withdraw!

MS. BROWN : You're a disgrace!

MR. CHAIRMAN : 1 recognize the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. Would the rest of the House please refrain?

MR. COCKE : You're in enough trouble now.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, we have a definite responsibility.... 1 don't know why the Clerk insists on doing that, Mr. Chairman. This is incredible. Thank you.

We have a definite responsibility to bring out these inconsistencies and these improper actions on the part of the minister. It is public knowledge that a contract was granted to a political and other kind of associate of the minister prior to his taking office. We have a responsibility to establish that relationship in this committee and then to demand answers and rectification, if possible, from that minister for his improper actions in granting this kind of patronage to his friends. That is our responsibility.

To say that that is not relevant in committee is saying that the opposition has no role to play in Committee of Supply. If there is anything that is relevant it is the actions of this minister insofar as he has power to grant a lucrative contract to a former or continuing political friend. That relationship stems back to 1975.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, hon. member. You are entering debate now.

MR. LAUK : No, I'm just saying that this is what the member is saying. It relates back to 1975 and that is what the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is talking about, It relates farther back, but he is raising an issue. It is through a responsible procedure of the member for Victoria raising a step-by-step relationship....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, you are entering into debate.

MR. LAUK : No, I'm not. It's through a responsible step-by-step proof before this committee that there was a relationship between that minister and this PR fellow....

[ Page 3873 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, hon. member. The Chair rules that you are now entering into the debate and you are impinging upon your privileges in stating a point of order. I think you realize that.

MR. LAUK : I'm sure it would not be something that you would like to see in the public....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, you are entering into debate,

MR. LAUK : No, I'm just pointing out to the minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN : You are entering into debate, hon. member. Please state your point of order.

MR. LAUK : I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you would not like the public to say of the Chair in this committee that you are not allowing a full public disclosure of any alleged improper action on the part of the minister to come out in this committee. We can't have Committee of Supply in the corridors, Mr. Chairman-, we must have it in the committee itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member. Perhaps I could just quote to you from the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 725. This alludes to general restrictions upon debate.

"Regarding the general conduct of debate on supply, " and I would like the hon. member to take cognizance of this, "it may be observed that remarks on the conduct of a servant of the state made on the estimate containing his salary must be restricted to his official conduct."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We're speaking about the official conduct. I would ask the hon. second member for Victoria to continue.

MR. BARBER : I'm happy to accept that advice, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to talk about the official conduct of this minister and to review the situation whereby the charges as were laid today by the hon. Liberal leader might indeed have some credence. As far as we can tell, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons these charges have credence is because over a period of time this minister has enjoyed a political and personal relationship with Mr. Ray Torresan. It is a relationship that did not spring up overnight.

The charges laid today by the Liberal leader would be less credible, Mr. Chairman, if overnight somehow some kind of relationship was established which was then alleged to be beneficial in an improper way to Mr. Torresan. The fact and the truth and the evidence is, Mr. Chairman - about which I am now asking the minister some questions - that this relationship did not spring up overnight at all. It predates the 1975 election. Indeed, it predates the minister's membership in the Social Credit Party.

What I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister's responsibility for ICBC, when questioned in this particular way by the Liberal leader, demands of necessity an opportunity for the minister to answer some questions about his obvious relationship with Mr. Torresan. That relationship is present today. That relationship appears to have begun some time ago. In fairness to the minister, he should have an opportunity to discuss that relationship. In fairness to the minister he should have an opportunity to answer my questions. I wish, if I may, just briefly to put a few more questions. Because the topic has changed, I'll review, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the history of it.

It's clear that Mr. Torresan has done work for the Non-Partisan Association in Vancouver and, I'm told, for the right wing of the Liberal Party. It's clear that he worked on the campaign of the one-time mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Tom Campbell. It's also clear that he's done some work for the Social Credit Party, Mr. Chairman, and that work brings me to my present questions.

I'm asking the minister if he received in something like the third week of September, together with his colleagues - then Liberals - the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , letter and advice from Mr. Ray Torresan informing them that in order to effect their participation in the Social Credit Party, they were well advised to appear with the then Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) in campaign trips taking place in Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Terrace, Nanaimo and some other unspecified city. Indeed, Mr.

Chairman, I asked the minister if he received advice then from Mr. Torresan, which presumably he followed - he joined the party and he's now in the cabinet - that these details were to be ironed out on September 29,1975, and the announcement was to be made on October 8,1975.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if it is the case that in those days, when it served his purposes, this minister was accepting political advice and instruction from Mr. Torresan - I'm informed that a copy of that letter went to the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier of the province - is it not possible, Mr. Chairman, that the relationship so obviously strong and directive in those days might be equally strong and directive today? They did arrange the defection; the meetings were held; they did cross over; they did join the government party - the then opposition party.

Is it not reasonable to assume that a relationship with such a gentleman in those days, as strong and directive and powerful and influential as it was, might be equally strong and directive and

[ Page 3874 ]

powerful and influential today? That's a reasonable and rational question to ask, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Torresan had all of that weight in those days, how much more weight does he have now? If when they were in opposition he could do all of this - write such letters, give such advice, and see it acted on -how much more advice does he give today? How much more influence does he possess today?

I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would care to tell us about the origins of his relationship with Mr. Torresan and about the specifies of the advice which Mr. Torresan evidently once gave him regarding the timing and details of his defection to Social Credit together with his colleagues, the now Minister of Labour and the now Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I hate to interrupt you, but only as it relates to his administrative duties at this point in time. I'm sure you're aware of that.

MR. BARBER : Indeed, MR. Chairman, since becoming the Minister of Education has that minister held meetings of any sort with Mr. Torresan? If so, where were they? Were they to discuss this business? Were they to discuss these arrangements? Were they in his capacity as minister responsible for ICBC, or simply as an old friend and political crony? Were they social events across the table? Were they business meetings across a desk? What meetings, if any, has the minister had with Mr. Torresan since becoming responsible for ICBC?

If such meetings were held, were these financial arrangements with ICBC discussed at any time? Would the minister care to answer these? If they kept minutes, would he care to table them in the House before we do? I'd be grateful if the minister would answer these questions about his relationship with Mr. Torresan.

HON. MR. MeGEER : Mr. Chairman, first of all, 1 want to reiterate what 1 have said before - namely, that no contract exists with the Torresan agency. 1 thought for a minute the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was going to draw attention to my old friendship and family relationship with the agency that is no longer engaged on a month-to-month basis with ICBC, the Catton advertising agency. We've known the Cattons for over 30 years and, indeed, Catton was the advertising agency for the Liberal Party in the 1972 election.

MR. BARBER : He's still a Liberal, and you're not.

HON. MR. McGEER : Naturally we have known the Catton family much longer than I've known Ray Torresan, but I don't think that would exclude any agency from doing professional work. The answer is yes, I've seen some of the creative work that Torresan has done in the past few weeks and I can't tell you whether or not the board will want to proceed at all. I can just say that it was the decision of the board to engage Catton for a period of months, they've asked for further work from Torresan, and that's it. There were nine agencies interviewed, and I myself didn't interview those nine agencies in July, 1976.

That I can't really tell you what the individual presentations of the agencies were at that time. I simply didn't have time to go into it. The fact that I happen to know these people personally is certainly not going to influence the decision of the board of ICBC as to whether they do or do not get work. I don't think that Catton should have been disqualified from making a presentation to ICBC or working for some months because I personally knew him, nor should Torresan.

You referred to prior to the 1975 election, and we did have a meeting with Torresan. It may be that he arranged either the press conference for us or a public meeting we had before that - I can't recall which one. We had a public meeting in the Prince of Wales High School gym and Torresan was involved, I think, with one of those two events.

MR. BARBER : What I asked specifically, Mr. Chairman, was whether or not the minister personally or his representative have met with Mr. Torresan personally or with his representative to discuss the specific financial arrangements since becoming responsible for ICBC. I did not ask whether he considered other people, whether he's rejecting old Liberal friends who are still Liberals, but now that he's a Socred he won't pay them any attention anymore, I asked whether he or his representative had met with Mr.

Torresan or his representative to discuss the specific details of the financial arrangement which, as outlined by the hon. Liberal leader and agreed to by the minister, now exists between the Torresan agency and ICBC.

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

MS. BROWN : Mr. Chairman, again it seems I'm going to have to defer because I do not want to break the trend of this discussion, but I really want to go on after it.

MR. KING : I just have one or two brief questions for the minister, and I want to thank the first member for Burrard for deferring.

I'm interested in who made the decision to cancel the previous agency's services with ICBC and to retain on whatever basis the Torresan firm. From the minister's indication I gain the impression t