1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1319 ]

CONTENTS

Speaker's ruling

Columbia River treaty document not a breach of privilege

— 1319

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Leasing of office space. Mr. Bennett —

Studies into expansion of existing oil-refining capacity. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 1320

Government intervention in CKLG picketing. Mr. Wallace — 1321

BCGEU wage increases. Mr. Phillips — 1322

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates

On vote 38.

Ms. Brown

— 1323

Mr. Schroeder — 1325

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1328

Mr. Wallace — 1332

Mr. Lewis — 1337

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1340

Mrs. Jordan — 1343

Mr. McClelland — 1348

Mr. Gibson — 1349

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1354

Mr. Chabot — 1355

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1356

Mr. McGeer — 1357

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1358

Appendix — 1360

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome one of our Conservative friends from the

Province of Alberta. We have visiting with us in the Speaker's

gallery Mr. and Mrs. Frank Appleby. Mr. Appleby is the MLA in

the Alberta House for the riding of Athabaska. I would ask the

House to give them a welcome.

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

Speaker, visiting Victoria today — and I believe they may have

just arrived in the public gallery — is a group from the Golden

Age Club of the Jewish Community Centre in Vancouver. I would

ask the House to welcome them and I hope they have a wonderful

day in Victoria.

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

the gallery today a group of trade unionists from the

Amalgamated Transit union who are visiting Victoria. I would

ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them. Also, Mr.

Speaker, we have visiting us today the mayor of Revelstoke and

the city administrator, His Worship Mayor Parker and Mr. Bill

Euerby. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker,

thank you. In the Members' gallery today is Mrs. Mary Backlund

of Galiano Island in the Saanich and the Islands constituency.

Mrs. Backlund is a member of the pioneer Georgeson family and

known to many British Columbia coastal people. Mrs. Backlund is

also the retired B.C. director of the national executive of the

Media Club of Canada and was formerly associated for many years

with the Canadian Women's Press Club. In spite of visits to the

Legislature over a good number of years, I believe this is the

first occasion she has been introduced to the Members. I would

ask them to welcome her.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we

have in the gallery today 17 girl guides from North Vancouver

accompanied by their leaders, Mrs. Junkin, Mrs. McSorley and

Mrs. Hardy. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

later this afternoon we will be joined in the gallery by a

group of status and non-status Indians who have been taking an

upgrading course (Band Economic Development Training). They are

with their leader/teacher and associate, Marie Shuter and Blair

Harvey. I ask you to welcome them.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I have been informed that

somewhere in the gallery a visitor is present who requires our

best behaviour. I have just had a note to tell me that my

mother is here today and I ask the House to behave itself

accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought that would apply to you.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Welcome back, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. Members, while I was away

something happened. (Laughter.) Apparently the Hon. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) tabled a document

that had been circulated and asked whether or not it

constituted a breach of privilege. The document had already

been referred to me by the Hon. Member. It appears that it has

been circulated for some time and that in its present situation

it would not constitute an urgent matter that would require

setting aside the normal business of the House.

If anyone felt that they wished to take up the question as a

point of privilege, it would have to be by notice of motion

owing to the two basic rules that always apply. First, does the

matter affect the capacity of the Member so far as his

functions in the Legislature are concerned? I cannot see that

it does.

Secondly, it's not an urgent matter because it has been

apparently in existence for quite some time in a variety of

publications. Therefore it would not satisfy those two basic

rules that we have used over the years in determining whether

the ordinary business should be set aside. I would so advise

the House.

Oral questions.

LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Public Works. Could the Minister confirm to the

House that his department has leased 4,025 square feet of

office space located at 10575 and 10579 King George Highway for

a five-year period on a triple net basis?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part

of the question is no. I'll take the balance as notice.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental. Could the Minister also, when he

reports to the House, advise us of the question he took as

notice and said he would report to the House on of March 21,

regarding the Oxford Building in Prince George, which is in a

similar rental condition as these premises?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe if

[ Page 1320 ]

the Member will check that question he'll find that I stated

that if he would provide us with certain information I'd reply.

As yet, that information has not been tabled.

MR. BENNETT: I did provide you.... Oh, cut it out!

STUDIES INTO EXPANSION OF

EXISTING OIL-REFINING CAPACITY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Premier and Minister of

Finance. Following along the questions of yesterday in which

the Premier and Minister of Finance indicated that in two

respects the press release of April 9 — subject: "B.C. to Build

a Petroleum Refinery" — was indeed wrong, and his statement

that the government of British Columbia will build a petroleum

refinery and the supply will come from Alberta, may I ask him

whether the government did a study on the relative cost per

barrel of expanding existing refinery capacity in British

Columbia before making their decision regarding a new

refinery?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I welcome that

question, even though it's bordered on policy. I want to tell

the House that we are deeply concerned about the central

location of oil refinery capacity in a deeply populated urban

centre in Burrard Inlet. Also, expansion would mean the

expansion of those facilities that were planned before we came

into government. Since that time it would be the only outlet

for a captured market for a number of oil companies. There is

no commitment to build in Surrey. If there is any danger to

urban health, we will move to a location where that danger is

at a minimum. But I will not head a government that is forced

to continue a policy of expansion of oil refineries that exist

in heavily populated areas already.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In the

response to my question, the Premier managed to forget the

question, which was whether or not there had been a study done

prior to him making his decision. Also, perhaps, if he wished

to comment, would he comment on what steps have been taken to

correct the press release issued on April 9, which was indeed

wrong in two respects, as we found out in question period

yesterday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help the Member in correcting

his impressions of what he reads. He finds everything wrong no matter what he

picks up. There will not be an oil refinery unless we have oil. I made that

statement yesterday. I thought that that basic logic would have permeated his

limited skills in analyzing basic requirements. If you can't have oil, you don't

have an oil refinery. That is a basic policy of this government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether or not the

Premier in question period would like to address himself to

some of the questions that have been addressed to him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not when those questions are

accusations.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would ask him first to consider the

question that I asked him regarding the study done on the cost

of increasing existing capacity that we have at the present

time. The second question I would address to him is whether he

will take steps to make sure that the press releases which

state flatly that refinery crude will come from Alberta, which

turn out to be questionable, or at least inaccurate in

accordance with what we've been told yesterday, are in turn not

repeated in the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help that Member's

misinterpretations in question period or any other time.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Repeating the question I asked the first

time I got up: has there been a study done on the costs per

barrel of increasing existing capacity as opposed to the new

construction which the Premier has talked about?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Many studies, Mr. Speaker, not the least

of which is the avoidance of major expansion in the urban areas

in Burrard Inlet.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Supplementary. I'd just like

to ask the Premier whether he could tell the House whether the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, or any other

study that the government has in its hands, has recommended

that a refinery not be built on the lower mainland or that a

refinery, if built, should be built in Merritt.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a number of

possible sites. Some irresponsible persons are making

announcements on decisions that have not yet been made. If the

Environment and Land Use Committee and Pollution Control Board

recommend against the site, we will not build on that site. It

is as simple as that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, has it happened?

[ Page 1321 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That hasn't happened yet because no

decision has been made on a site. The studies are underway.

Some are complete, but all studies are not yet completed. Some

people are playing politics, and I regret that, even when my

mother is here.

AN HON. MEMBER: When will you announce it?

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in question period the Premier said that it was — I

think his term was "shocking" — that we should be opposing this

refinery before all the studies were in. I think it is shocking

and I would like to ask the Premier why we are buying land in

Surrey before the studies are done, and telling the people that

we are buying that land for a refinery.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No one is telling anyone that we are

buying land for a refinery.

MR. McCLELLAND: You are!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've picked up options, Mr. Member. You

are the one who is telling them that they are buying it for a

refinery.

MR. McCLELLAND: So are the people who are picking up the

options.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question, I

ask the Member a question: would he apologize for misleading

people?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier

to apologize for misleading this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: The people who are buying that property are

telling the people that property is being optioned for a

possible oil refinery.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, "possible."

MR. McCLELLAND: It's as simple as that; no other reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Member has

now corrected his statement...

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...that they are optioning land for a

possible refinery.

MR. BENNETT: What else?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What else? You have been going around

saying: "Will the Premier tell the House that you have been

buying land for a refinery?" five lines later in Hansard

he says,"...for a possible refinery." Now his next

question will be: "Is it a possible purchase for a possible

refinery on a possible answer?" You're impossible, Mr.

Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we get on with this

question period?

MR. McCLELLAND: One more question to the Premier. No one has

answered this question: if the government decides not to build

a refinery...

HON. MR. BARRETT: If, if, if.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...in Surrey, will it drop the options and

return that land to private ownership?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If the sun goes down tonight, it will come

up tomorrow morning, Mr. Member. You have reduced your argument

to accusations...

MR. McCLELLAND: Your mother just left in disgust.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...shocking questions and if, if, if. You

go into your riding and make one statement then you come into

the House and say if, if, if.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No decision has been made for Surrey or

any other location.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're sick.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No decision will be made until all studies

are completed.

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

IN CKLG PICKETING

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the

subject. I seem to get that job each time in question period,

to get on to a new subject. I would like to ask the Minister of

Labour, who is rubbing his eyes awake: In light of the

Minister's constant and strenuous efforts to keep the

government neutral in labour-management disputes, has the

Minister considered seeking a cease-and-desist order to be

applied to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

[ Page 1322 ]

Mr. Levi) to prevent his continuing picketing of radio

station CKLG? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think we have yet to see any

government agency apply for a cease-and-desist order in a

labour dispute between private parties. I certainly take the

view that labour legislation, and certainly any policy that I

advocate, was not designed to restrict or regulate the

activities of MLAs in their decision as to how they choose to

represent their constituents. So long as those activities are

confined to their personal representations in the ridings, and

are not purported to reflect government policy in any way, I

see nothing in which to involve the Department of Labour. I am

sure the Member for Oak Bay would object strenuously if I came

up with any initiative to limit or regulate his activities in

the riding of Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I ask the Minister, then, whether the Minister

of Human Resources, in his picketing activities, was clearly

representing the voters in his riding. He is described as being

a CUPE member and a duly authorized business agent of the

local. I would suggest that there is a frightening conflict of

interest if these descriptions are correct. Could the Minister

tell me if, in fact, the Minister of Human Resources was

clearly acting as a representative of the voters in the riding

he represents?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the point is that labour

legislation is designed to regulate the framework of bargaining

and picketing activities between trade unions and industry. It

is not designed to regulate the political activities of Members

of this House. If it were so, perhaps the Member for Oak Bay

might have been prohibited from walking on the picket line in

the case of the famous Sandringham dispute, as I understand he

did.

MR. WALLACE: No, I didn't.

HON. MR. KING: I wouldn't presume to intervene or to extend

labour legislation to those kinds of activities. As far as the

Minister being responsible to his constituents, that is a

question for him and his constituents to a judge. Presumably,

that will take place at the appropriate time — when the Premier

makes the decision.

MR. WALLACE: Well, for the record, I did not walk the picket

line at Sandringham Hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: See, you can't win in here.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): That's what we wanted

to hear.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish the Hon. Member would confine his

questions to the Member responsible in this case. If you're

questioning the actions of another Member of the House, that's

the Member the question should go to.

MR. WALLACE: I'm questioning the whole concept of cabinet

responsibility, and the Minister is referring to the Minister

of Human Resources as though there were no potential conflict

of interest. My final supplementary was to ask if the Minister

has ever made any recommendations to cabinet regarding

guidelines which should be offered to all the Members of this

House in giving them some guidance and advice as to their

proper role and their conduct in this kind of very sensitive

labour-management situation.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I happen to belong to a

trade union myself. And being the Minister directly responsible

for industrial relations in this province, I would not involve

myself in a dispute because that would certainly jeopardize my

impartiality in terms of regulating and administering the

Department of Labour, in my view. But surely the Members of

this Legislature, who have been duly elected by the people of

British Columbia, are mature enough in their political judgment

that they can discern for themselves what is a responsible type

of conduct to participate in at the constituency level. I would

not presume to impose any guidelines to this House. I think

that would be presumptuous and a bit snobbish, quite frankly. I

can only hope that the Members are mature enough and

responsible enough to recognize their own obligations.

BCGEU WAGE INCREASES

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary. Would

the Minister confirm that the total cost of wage increases

given to B.C. civil servants this will amount to approximately

$60 million?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yes, that would be the

minimum figure that would be applicable to the 13 components of

the B.C. Government Employees' Union.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did the Minister also say that these increases

given this year will not be repeated again?

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not going to get involved in that kind of

Perry Mason questioning, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1323 ]

MRS. P. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You have a responsibility

to answer questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: He was quoted in the paper....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think that that statement was

made in the House, so you're really asking him if he made a

statement in the House. We certainly have our own

Hansard .

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

same Minister. Would the Minister advise us why in the salary

contingencies in the estimates before us there are exactly

$80,553,499 for salary raises in the coming year if the last

raise, which the Minister said was a catch-up and wouldn't

occur again, was only $60 million? We have $20 million more in

the estimates before us.

HON. MR. HALL: The Member is confusing fiscal years 1975/7

and 1976/7 — the agreements which cover parts of one year and

parts of another. I can't help him in his ignorance.

MRS. JORDAN: Did you get a course in arrogance over

Easter?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

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

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the committee that there is an

amendment before the committee at this time on vote 38, so that

is the item of discussion.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to rise to

speak against this amendment, and certainly to support the

Minister and the job that she's been trying to do in this

department. I think, Mr. Chairman, when we think about the

department that the Minister inherited and the really bad shape

that it was in, it's amazing that she's been able to get

anything out of that department at all. Certainly she should be

congratulated on what she has tried to do in this very short

period of time with it.

There are a couple of areas, Mr. Chairman, that I would specifically like to

speak about in terms of this amendment because I think that really the amendment

was introduced to stop us from talking about the department and the kinds of

real changes that we'd like to see in education in this department.

What I'd like to talk about are the kinds of problems that

the department is having, certainly in the Vancouver-Burrard

area, with the children who are entering the school system

department is doing everything it can in terms of helping the

schools to implement programmes on behalf of these children,

and I wonder whether the Minister would tell us what kind of

cooperation she's getting from the department of immigration

in the federal government with this programme that she's trying

to implement.

Most of the financing for this should be coming from the

Department of Immigration, from Mr. André's'

department; and certainly the submissions that parents are

making to the Minister and making to us as the MLAs for that

riding should be going to the Department of Immigration.

Nonetheless, I know that the Minister is trying to work through

the school system and, certainly, the school board is trying to

work with these children. I would like the Minister to tell us

what kind of cooperation she's getting, financial or

otherwise, from the Department of Immigration in Ottawa.

Like the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) I, too,

would like to compliment the Minister on the programme for

senior citizens, which was implemented at the University of

British Columbia, and to ask whether any efforts are being made

to expand and encourage this programme into some of the junior

colleges around the province as well as to Simon Fraser and

some of the other universities — the University of Victoria,

for example.

I know that the Department of Education is looking into the

whole business of textbook stereotyping on the basis of sex

and, certainly, race and ethnic origin. I attended a conference

this weekend in Windsor, Ontario — St. Clair College. At that

conference a resolution was passed to go to the Department of

Education in Ontario asking that all textbooks presently being

used in the schools that had any stereotyping in them, either

because of race or ethnic origin or sex, should be pulled off

of the shelves — should be taken out of the schools immediately

rather than waiting for a study to be completed and for new

textbooks to be used to replace them.

I'm wondering whether the Minister has thought about this,

whether the department would be willing to implement such a

proposal — that we not wait until the study is completed; but

as soon as any of these textbooks are brought to the attention

of the department, the textbooks should be pulled right

away.

While I'm talking about textbooks, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 1324 ]

I'm wondering whether the Minister could also tell us

whether a decided effort is being made on behalf of her

department to use textbooks which are published and written by

Canadians and, specifically, by people in British Columbia. I

know that this year, for example, a number of research projects

and a number of projects are being conducted by groups around

the province about women in the history of British Columbia. I

want to know whether the department is interested in publishing

any of these books on behalf of these groups, whether they're

encouraging the school boards to use these textbooks or not, or

whether we're still relying primarily on getting our textbooks

from other countries — specifically from the United States.

The report which was made on culture to the government

recommended that our artists and poets and creative people be

encouraged to enter into the schools, not just into the

community schools but into all the schools, in an attempt to

deal with the cultural needs of the students in the school at

the same time that we're dealing with their educational needs.

Although I realize that these kinds of decisions have to be

made at the school board level, I'm wondering whether the

department is doing anything to encourage the school boards

and, certainly, to encourage individual schools to Dow artists

and dancers and creative people into the schools to work with

the children at that level.

I know, for example, that the community school of Bayview in

my own riding certainly is doing this and that the programme is

being paid for primarily by individuals — small business people — in the area. But I'm wondering whether any kind of attempt is

being made to encourage this — certainly in terms of planning

for the development, the opening up of the north — whether this

is being taken into account, too, in terms of planning the

schools and the educational needs of the students who will be

moving into those areas.

One of the specific concerns that keeps cropping up has to

do with the business of student loans. Now there are two

separate areas of student loans that I'm a little bit concerned

about. One has to do with the needs of the sole-support parents

who are trying, while they are still on welfare, to go through

the university programme, for example. I realize that the

Department of Education takes the attitude that they are not

responsible for supporting them...primarily they are women,

but sometimes they are men. They're not supposed to be

responsible for supporting them while they are going through

the university system. At the same time, the Department of

Human Resources has rules that say that once they become

students they are no longer eligible for social assistance.

It really seems to me that if we are concerned about people being able to support

themselves and become independent, both the Department of Education and the

Department of Human Resources should get together and try to work out some kind

of formula to encourage these parents, and certainly to encourage these students

while they are trying to get their training — so that they can get off of welfare.

One of the major roadblocks in this, I know, has to do with

the way the whole system is funded from Ottawa. The Minister

who is responsible for education in Ottawa does not see this,

certainly, as part of the responsibility. But I would very much

like the Minister of Education, in cooperation with the

Minister of Human Resources, to once again appeal to this

Minister in terms of changing the rules so it will be possible

for those sole-support parents who are trying to go through

university to get off welfare — that they will get, maybe, two

sets of assistance. They will be eligible for student loans and

eligible for welfare at the same time while they are going

through university.

The other area has to do with a statement which is put out

by the services branch. Again, the reason why I am bringing

this up, of course, has to do with the fact that because of

this amendment on the floor, it is going to be very difficult

for us to get around to dealing primarily with the matters in

this department. Certainly, in speaking against the amendment I

would like to bring to the attention of the Minister that these

are the kinds of things we would like to discuss as soon as the

amendment has been dealt with.

Anyway, the students' services branch issued a statement

which said that all students should be expected to contribute

to their educational expenses, and this is the reason why the

student loan is set up the way it is. I am very much in support

of this except, for example, at a university like Simon Fraser

which is on the semester system, what happens to a student who

would like to attend for three semesters, and therefore has no

opportunity to work? Do the same kind of rules apply to that

student? I have before me a number of letters from such

students who are trying to get their education completed as

quickly as possible. They have signed up for all three

semesters at the university and find that they cannot get

financial assistance because they have not been working and

therefore not contributing anything to their financial

needs.

The very last thing I'd like to speak about under this

amendment, and the reason why I am speaking against the

amendment, is that it is preventing us from talking about

curriculum content and the kinds of things we would like to see

included in this and encouraged by your department.

I was very pleased that the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young), for example, has implemented a programme

which includes consumer education. I know from my own

experience, from my daughter's experience in her school, that

there is now

[ Page 1325 ]

being given a course on labour education in that secondary

school.

I would like to find out from the Minister whether any of

the school districts are presently looking at the business of

including socialist education in their curriculum. If there are

any such school districts, what kind of material would the

Department of Education have to offer to schools which would be

interested in including courses in socialist education in their

curriculum? What kind of rules would around who should go into

the schools and who can go into the schools to give such a

course?

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the

Minister for the kinds of decisions that she is making around

the Jericho Hill School, and to say that I am very much in

support of what she is trying to do and speaking very strongly

against this amendment to the motion.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): We closed last evening at

the supper hour in the middle of a statement, and I would like

to complete that statement, then go on to another area.

It's a little difficult, Mr. Chairman, with time being set

at exactly 30 minutes. It's like doing a television show in a

series — you have to sort of come to a conclusion at the end of

30 minutes and if you aren't at the conclusion in 30 minutes,

then maybe you've got to tune in the next day for the next

serial.

We were discussing the reasons that were cited, the defences

that were given, by the Minister. The very fact that the

Minister has become exceedingly defensive about her department

is reason for us to believe that she herself believes that

there has been a slowness — I am being kind — there has been a

slowness of the department to respond to change. She has cited

as some very real reasons the stubbornness of the bureaucracy,

or that it's difficult to get a huge bureaucracy to respond

readily to change. She has also cited that it requires,

perhaps, more time than she has been allotted. We went into

this last evening and I am just recapping so that I can flow

smoothly into this second section.

She cited not only time but also lack of funds. You'll

remember, Mr. Chairman, that last evening this was the subject

we were on. She said that if and when economic conditions

improved, we can resort to the plans — for instance, the plan

to further reduce teacher-pupil ratio, and perhaps the plan to

reduce taxes for education from owner-occupied residences and

from farmlands.

She further cited as reason for slowness to change the fact that there was

not enough help from supporting staff. As a matter of fact, I remember her saying

yesterday that when she acquired her position as Minister she had in one department

— I think it was the department involved in capital expenditure for school construction

— only four in the personnel division and that that certainly was not enough

to help to support the kind of changes that she will admit, and that we will

readily admit, needed to take place.

I think that we should not only take a look at the reasons

that can be cited — sort of motherhood reasons — for slowness

or stubbornness of change. I think that we should also look

perhaps at some of the reasons that the department is looking

to the Minister for. This has been well canvassed, and we've

talked about this in the House on other occasions: the

department is looking to the Minister for the direction in

which the change is to go. I think that we must all believe

that the Minister does have some changes in mind, some

directional changes, changes in this area, changes in area B,

changes in area C. If she doesn't have them, I suggested 10

areas yesterday — areas that were ready, ripe for change. Yet

the department seems to be looking for direction from the

Minister.

I could use as an example, perhaps, the research department

who were confused, frustrated, in their terms of reference.

Either the terms of reference weren't explicit enough or they

were not explained to the satisfaction of the research

department. Nonetheless, the direction in which they were to go

was not fully understood by the research department. If it had

been, they would have moved in the direction in which the

change was to take place, as directed by the Minister. They

could have come up, I am sure — because they had the ability —

with the conclusions and the research that the Minister would

find acceptable. But, no, not being given definitive, decisive

direction, the whole department floundered. As a result, the

Minister has had to contribute to one of the reasons she has

cited for slowness of change; she has had to contribute to that — remember that No. 4 was: "We don't have enough help" — she

has had to fire even the help she had. Withdraw the word "fire"

because it wasn't really firing. They were suspended. She has

had to suspend the very help that she was looking to enact the

change that was needed in the department.

If anything needs to be drawn to the attention of the

Minister, it is that the department is looking to her for

leadership. That's the way the structure should be. It could be

that the reverse is true and that the Minister's looking to the

Deputy for leadership. Nonetheless, in a proper organization,

as he did say in a press release in 1974, he is looking for

leadership in the department.

Madam Minister, to you through the Chairman, I would like to

encourage you not to be afraid of making decisions. I know

you're afraid of failure. I know that failure is not a thing

that is easy to cope with; it's not easy to deal with, and yet,

let's face it: it's a fact of life. Therefore you know that

somebody has to make the decision. Someone has to blow the

[ Page 1326 ]

whistle to start the race. Someone has to say: "This is the

way we're going to do it." I would like to encourage the

Minister to be decisive. Give direction. Show leadership. Show

courage. No question about the fact that you have it, but show

it in your department. Give the department whatever competence

you have, and be a manager in your own department.

I think, in being as helpful as I would wish to be, that

these are the areas I would like for you to take into

consideration, because they're well intended. There is no

reason why you shouldn't be the best Minister of Education that

this province has ever had. The plaudits are here in this room.

It's too bad that the same plaudits don't come from every

segment of society out beyond these four walls. But, by all

means, take the management position of your department, because

they are looking to you for leadership.

Let's move over to an area that, for lack of a better word,

we may call literacy — literacy in our educational department,

literacy in our schools, literacy of those who have graduated

through our schools.

I was happy to see the announcement from the department that

says: "We're going to apply some tests to certain segments of

the pupil population" — certainly representative segments — "to

see whether or not literacy is a problem." The Minister has

already cited it as one of three leading problems in the

province.

I have here a copy of a report that gives us the results of

the last such test that was applied to education in the

province. The test was taken in June of 1973, and although I

don't have the exact date of its reporting, it would have

naturally been subsequent to that date. The date on it is June,

1973, at which time the data already lead to the conclusion

that although the norms of British Columbia education were well

above United States norms a decade ago — a decade at that time

would have been 1963 — the B.C. median has fallen to three

months below the American norm in spelling, and one year below

the American norm in the other five language sub-tests.

This report came in, in 1973. I know that the Minister is

aware of it because it comes directly from her department. It

comes out of what used to be the research and standards branch.

By June this year it will be two years since these tests were

taken. I know that the Minister is aware that literacy is and

was a problem — has been for two years — and I find it a little

amazing that we need to take yet another test before we are

going to take some action in this regard.

I read the Minister's speech to the B.C. Teachers Federation

towards the end of March that we could expect, certainly within

a couple of weeks, that these tests would be ready and be

available, that they would be phase 1 of a testing programme. I am glad to hear

that these tests are actually going to be available. Phase 2 is

to happen later on this year.

I also noticed that in this same report that comes from the

department, in which the data was analyzed from these tests,

there are reasons stated for the decline in the basic language

skills. The reasons cited are changes in curriculum. Changes in

curriculum immediately affect basic literacy — that is the

conclusion of this report. Yet in the last few years, certainly

in the last couple of years of even the previous

administration, it was thought to be the in thing to promote

innovation, not realizing what the cost would be — not in terms

of dollars, but in terms of literacy.

As a result, the tests of 1973 as compared with just a

decade ago showed that not only did we deteriorate but that we

once led on the continent, we now, in 1973, were lagging on the

continent. Changes in curriculum; innovation, perhaps, even in

the methods of teaching that curriculum. Yet the Minister said

that one of the reasons why education had deteriorated to its

new low by 1972 was the lack of innovation.

There are other reasons cited. One of them is very obvious,

perhaps — high levels of immigration. Decreasing proportions of

special classes and increases in social promotion are other

reasons.

I was interested in the fourth reason given as a decline in

the basic language skills, and that is movement from a more

structured to a less structured type of classroom organization.

It is strange that they would come to this conclusion, that the

kind of structure in a classroom would have something to do

with basic language skills.

So I went to various periodicals, various news releases,

various opinions of people from other parts of Canada, Britain

and the United States to see what would lead us to a proper

conclusion that would say that just because you changed the

structure in a classroom it would affect basic skills,

particularly when the report says that a moving to a less

structured type has an adverse effect on literacy.

What happens to the proponents of the open classroom? What

happens to the concept of changing it from a classroom, which

is a sort of a concept of four walls, to a "teaching area"?

What happens to the idea of the open university, to which the

Minister subscribed upon taking office back in 1972? What

happens to the idea of a college without walls, of which we

have an experiment in my own area, the Chilliwack and

Abbotsford area? Here we have the movement from a structured to

a less structured type of organization that affects basic

literacy skills.

Before I develop the material I have under No. 4, I want to mention No. 5 in

passing: that a decline in pupil production of written material and continuous

classroom evaluation has affected basic skills

[ Page 1327 ]

adversely. The r eport seems to

say that not only was there not enough written material required of the students,

but also there was not enough continuous evaluation. Perhaps the tests to which

we have had to resort now to find out where we are in literacy may well have

been the tests we should have had all along so that we knew what our literacy

level was before a crisis occurred.

Let's look at some of the material that, perhaps, would lead

us to say less structuring, permissiveness, in the structure of

education leads to illiteracy. I don't like the word

"illiteracy"...but certainly a depreciation of

literacy.

I notice that there is an abundance of material in our own

dailies, in our own weeklies, of various people stressing a

return...and I would appreciate that whenever a crisis occurs

there can be an overreaction. The Minister has already stated

that in no way does she intend to allow the pendulum to swing

all the way back so that we will have only a stress on the

basics and let innovation pass us by for the next couple of

years.

I know that in the number of articles that refer to various

authorities, and some authorities only in the fact that they

are parents of students, there is a pressure to return to the

basics. This pressure certainly is an indication that we need

to return to the structured system to which the population had

grown accustomed and in which they believe, and in which they

think literacy can be restored.

I think perhaps a not so obvious enemy of literacy is the

introduction, the spawning, of a greater permissiveness within

our educational system. For instance, here's a report out of

eastern Canada, a speech made by David McKenzie who was the

headmaster at Brentwood College. He expresses his opinion this

way, referring to the permissive philosophy:

"It cannot lead to academic excellence. It cannot result in athletic attainment. Permissiveness cannot

achieve worthwhile results in the area of fine arts, or choir,

or drama, or debate, or orchestra because all of these

activities require a characteristic which seems to be an

anathema to the modern progressive, and that is the word

'discipline.'"

The reference to the word "discipline" here is

mental discipline, as referred to the disciplines of medicine,

the disciplines of philosophy and so on and so forth.

He said:

"The permissives, who have the extraordinary effrontery to

class themselves as progressives have twisted the term

discipline, which means not oppressiveness, but self-sacrifice;

not brutality, but mutual respect and affection.

"They talk of freedom when they mean licence; of allowing

students to make their own decisions, when they really mean relinquishing their

own professional responsibilities. They speak of democracy and forget that a

democratic society is only workable when its members have had long years of

training and experience and have come to respect law and order, and to give

support and loyalty to those they themselves have elected."

This is McKenzie's opinion and it relates to permissiveness

as it affects literacy: academic achievement or excellence

cannot be the result of a permissive philosophy.

So, Mr. McKenzie says, to the Minister: make sure that

although you, perhaps, do not allow the pendulum to swing all

the way back to only an emphasis on basics, nonetheless let us

pay strict attention to basics, and not only look at

innovation. Another voice that, perhaps, comes from the private

school area says simply this:

"Frankly, I am worried about our maintained education. I

don't agree with permissiveness. I don't believe the adult

teacher has any reason to apologize for himself.

have no right to guide their children. A parent in the state

system has no choice or say as to which school his child goes

to, and to get around this and to get to the top-level state

schools, he moves to a better environment. Consequently, he is

still getting education by payment."

Here is another speaker, Fred Shaw, the headmaster of Kings

College in Wimbledon. He is afraid of the permissiveness that

has crept into education, particularly in this country. Perhaps

we should look at his opinions before they become of even more

major proportions in our own country. In Britain someone has

said that inadequate literacy — that's a kind of way of saying

"illiteracy," isn't it? — is the result of unqualified

teachers. At first I would say that would be unfair,

particularly if we wish to superimpose this thought on our

British Columbia education scene.

I agree with the Minister when she says that we have,

undoubtedly, an educational staff of teachers, instructors and

professors of whom we are definitely proud. They are excellent.

They are, perhaps, unsurpassed in their excellence when we

compare them with any other area, certainly in our own country

and, in many instances, abroad.

Therefore, I wouldn't want to say that in British Columbia

inadequate literacy is necessarily the result of unqualified

teachers. But in reading this particular statement I think that

it needs to be said that in British Columbia we should also

have some tests, perhaps more adequate than the ones we have,

Madam Minister, that would ensure that we do not have

unqualified teachers. We must have, as the

[ Page 1328 ]

Minister has already said, more in-service training. We

should have a greater enrichment of teacher training. This

would give every teacher an opportunity to upgrade themselves

in the art of teaching — and it is an art. However, we must

somehow or other also ensure that our system rids itself of

those who are doing an unqualified job of teaching.

[Mr. D'Arcy in the chair.]

I think I've mentioned it here in the House before, but I

find it rather amazing that out of the now over 23,000 teachers

in the province, we have as few as three in a given year being

repulsed by the system because of lack of qualification. If

this is really all the unqualified teachers we have in the

system, then we have a beautiful and adequate system indeed.

However, if only three are excluded when in fact we should

have, perhaps, 103 excluded, then our system of evaluation for

our teachers needs upgrading. There again I think that we shall

not, should not, cannot...and I must insist that we do not

allow a permissive attitude toward qualification of

teachers.

I notice that in eastern Canada there is a flood of

enrolment to remedial schools, schools which traditionally

take a stand opposed to innovation only for innovation's sake —

certainly, permissiveness. There is a school in Toronto, The

Toronto Learning Centre, which was the brainchild of two

special educationists. Parents who have been dissatisfied with

their own school system in the Province of Ontario are angry.

They feel they can't fight the system alone. They are hostile

and still intimidated, not knowing really which way to turn.

They don't know whom to approach. As a result, there is a flood

of inquiries and a flood of enrolment that comes to remedial

schools.

I think this should say something to us in British Columbia.

If permissiveness is rejected even by the parents who wish to

enrol their students in school, then perhaps we should

eliminate that permissiveness in our own school system.

I would like to have as soon as possible a copy of the test

that is going to be applied, both the one that is ready now,

and the one that will be ready in August or September. I would

like a copy immediately, or as soon as possible, at least, to

see whether or not the evaluation is taking place not only in

the three R's, but that the evaluation is taking place in these

other areas of permissiveness.

There are still some other professors, for example,

Professor Malcolm MacGregor, who say that schools are not doing

the job. He says that we have got to return to the three R's,

the good, old-fashioned values, and the classroom where the

teacher is the boss. This is the opinion of Professor

MacGregor. He says that it is necessary now for the university

speak in their own tongue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I interrupt the Member to note that his green

light is on.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you.

The old discipline is disappearing from our schools. In its

place is something called "permissiveness."

I have referred to a number of opinions. I have scads more —

if I can use that word. I have much more material that leads to

the indication that there is permissiveness within our school

society. I would insist that the Minister consider this as a

priority in trying to restructure the educational system which

will return literacy to our province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, like the

previous speaker, I am restricted to the 30-minute rule, and

there are many things I would like to discuss. One thing he

didn't mention is, of course, that we now have a

schedule which

puts us probably at the end of any discussion of education at 6

o'clock. So we're faced with two schedules: one is personal,

and this is probably the last chance I'll have to speak; the

second is, of course, that the estimates will probably

terminate, to all intents and purposes, in less than three

hours time.

Therefore, rather than go through the notes I have here on

educational financing in British Columbia, rather than go

through the material I have from teachers and others dealing

with teacher qualifications, stress fatigue of teachers and the

sexism in the schools referred to by the first speaker of the

day, I will return to a subject which I discussed yesterday,

namely the question of the research and development

division.

Yesterday I raised this and the Minister simply said to me

that she couldn't do a thing because there was a grievance

procedure. Just a few moments ago a letter was delivered to my

desk — a copy of a letter, I should say — signed by one Stanley

B. Knight, addressed to Mrs. E. Dailly, Minister of Education,

Legislature Building, Victoria.

In this letter the former head of the research and

development division states that he "would not want the public

or the House denied information or the opportunity for open

debate about such an important issue as the current condition

of the educational enterprise because of my grievance

procedure."

His letter is detailed and factual, what I've been able to

read of it. I'd like to just go through some of those things. I

imagine the Minister is fully aware of what I'm talking

about.

The letter is dated April 15, 62-4061 Larchwood Drive,

Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mrs. Dailly:

"It has come to my attention that debate in the Legislature

related to education has been restricted by a concern for

jeopardizing the

[ Page 1329 ]

grievance rights of myself and former members of the research

development division. All of us are very grateful that the government is concerned

that due process and natural justice should prevail.

"There are many people in our society who have a great deal

of faith in democracy. However, they are finding themselves

increasingly dismayed at how easily the democratic process can

end with the markings of a ballot and the closing of a

government's caucus door. If responsible government is to

prevail then information must be provided to all the

people."

That's precisely the point I made yesterday before I

received this letter and knew that Dr. Knight did not want his

grievance procedure to stand in the way of full discussion.

Dr. Knight goes on:

"I've always supported your public request for 'open and

frank discussions' in order that everything will be 'perfectly

clear.' What better place for the debate than the floor of the

Legislature, where Members are protected by the privilege of

the House, a great feature of the democratic process?

"On previous occasions, both in the House and in public

gatherings, you have made accusations against ex-research and

development workers that are incorrect and unsubstantiated. It

is important that these charges be presented openly and

accurately, free from half-truths and innuendos."

The letter goes on:

"Concern for educational problems in general, and the firing

of the research and development workers specifically, has been

expressed by a large majority of the population, not just a

small minority of individuals as suggested by you and your

government.

"This includes calls for your resignation and an in-depth

inquiry into the management of the education department from

many people. It includes the executive and members of the B.C.

School Trustees Association, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the

B.C. Teachers Federation, local NDP councils, local teachers'

associations (including your own Burnaby riding), interest

groups and private citizens.

"It is your government's democratic responsibility to

present accurate information as quickly as possible to the

Legislature and the people."

I agree. It's great for the government Members to get up and say: "This is

the best Minister of Education we've ever had." (I'm not reading now, Mr. Chairman.)

But it is, I believe, a fact that this is the first time that the resignation

of the Minister has been requested by both the trustees and the teachers. We

had a former Minister of Education by the name of one Mr. Brothers. While I

thought — and I still feel — that he was worse than the present Minister, the

record of the present Minister is amazing in terms of calls for resignation.

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

order, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the statement

made on resignation is inaccurate. I was never officially

informed by the B.C. Teachers Federation representative

assembly or convention that they had asked for my resignation.

The resignation was asked for by the president. I think you

would find the same thing applied also to the other major

associations. I do wish that you would list that correctly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly I'll correct that and accept

the Minister's statement. Her resignation call was from the

presidents of the organizations — the heads of the organizations

- that I referred to. Indeed, I don't think even my friend, or

at least the previous Minister of Education, Mr. Brothers, was

ever treated in the same way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shocking, isn't it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Shocking, dreadful, as the Premier

admits.

Page two of this letter — I'll continue, Mr. Chairman. I

read it quickly and underlined a few things.

"Please feel free to bring up any topic related to the

relationship between the operation of the research and

development division and the Department of Education."

Please

feel free, he says.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Premier, if you'd listen and if you

will continue to listen, you will find out exactly what he's

asking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you're absurd.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He goes on and says:

"I have nothing to hide. Do not restrict yourself, your

government or the opposition from any debate which you may

think may jeopardize the status of the research and development

grievance procedures."

Those are his words. He thinks it's important for education that it be discussed

here, and, like myself, he rejects the feeble excuses yesterday that this somehow

was a total bar from the public knowing what actually went on in the Department

[ Page

1330 ]

Education and what went on in the research and development

division.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is he foregoing his appeal?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"While employed in the Department of Education, I attempted

to live by the terms of reference of my job description and

discharge my duties with the greatest sense of responsibility

and integrity. If you feel that you have some privileged

information that needs to be tabled in the House, you have my

permission to do so."

That's the statement of Stanley Knight.

"Possibly it could be the research and development paper on

the formation of the White Paper study groups or developmental

inquiry. Of interest would be the education programme paper

which was rejected by the Minister, the Deputy, the

superintendent of education programme and other senior

officials.

"Why is it that you and all of the senior officials of the

department believe that the social and economic factors in a

community are not important when designing local school

curricula or considering the organization and management of

local school districts? Is it contrary to government policy to

suggest that curricula of the schools is compartmentalized,

biased, in many ways irrelevant and therefore should be

seriously analysed for improvement?

"There are many other questions that should be discussed

openly and frankly if the Legislature and the public are ever

to understand the relationship between the R & D division

and the educational policy of the government. And these are

fundamental questions. For example:

"

(1) Why do we have schools? Is it a violation of government

policy to attempt to answer what used to be a traditional

question in a contemporary manner? Is it a violation of

government policy to analyse the relationship between education

and labour?

"

(2) Why are the literacy skill levels of our students

dropping?" (That's a matter referred to by the previous

speaker.) "Was the R & D group wrong in suggesting that for

many of our youth the prospect of future unemployment was

influencing their motivation for formal education? Were they

wrong in designing a project that would attempt to determine if

the erosion of literacy skills in our institutions was directly

related to an indoctrination procedure and the historical

failure of the schools to prepare people to live worthwhile and

meaningful lives?

"

(3) Were the R & D staff being unreasonable when they

wrote their papers on grants and insisted that the Department

of Education should not give funds to private or public

institutions or agencies without first negotiating a contract

or letter of agreement as to objectives, commitments,

responsibilities and evaluation?

"

(4) Is it unreasonable to suggest that accountability

demands that the educational value of projects such as the

Strathcona programme be determined prior to approval of funds

in order that justification on the basis of post hoc analysis

can be avoided?

"

(5) What is the government's real policy on community

participation? That's something we've heard a great deal about

from the NDP. R & D argued that those people who are

affected by decisions should be part of the decision-making

process. Further, educational decisions made within a community

should be based on the provision of all information to the

community in order that an effective decision can be made. And

why does the Minister insist on reports for consideration? Why

did the department suggest in a memo to the superintendents

that, when discussing community involvement in education, the

superintendents should consider carefully the advisability of

having parents in attendance? Why isn't it mandatory? Doesn't

the government think that the citizens can function in a

responsible manner? Why is the community participation model of

the Department of Education based on an attitude of paternalism

and benevolence?

"

(6) Does the government support the shoddy management

practices of the Department of Education, which includes" — and

this is what I referred to yesterday, Madam Minister —

"questionable hiring practices, illegal firings, intimidation

of employees, the ransacking of desks, the seizing of records,

use of security guards and, finally, bad advice to the

Minister?

"

(7) Who really runs the department?" That question has come

up frequently in the last three years.

"

(8) Was the research and development division really a

scapegoat for no educational policy?

"

(9) Is the White Paper the government's educational

policy?"

If I can depart from this letter, Mr. Chairman, when the White Paper first

came in, I had to ask the question to the Minister: is that the White Paper?

I didn't know if it was a precis of it or a preface to an introductory

text on education. I didn't really know

[ Page

1331 ]

what it was. And I couldn't tell by reading it. Anyway:

"

(9) Is the White Paper the government's educational

policy? Apparently the question is still relevant. Why are the

job descriptions of the R & D staff directly related to the

White Paper?

"

(10) Why didn't the Deputy Minister of Education evaluate

the work of the dismissed research officers in the usual manner

by using the normal civil service commission evaluation

form?"

Again, a question I put to you yesterday, Madam Minister:

why was a letter of dismissal used with no personal

consultation despite tremendous talk about this government's

concern for civil servants, despite the procedures laid down by

the civil service commission? I won't go into it done in the

manner that it was done? Why were they denied their rights?

"

(11) What policies were being constructed of implemented

by the R & D staff? The Minister has been challenged to

back up this public charge specifically. What did the R & D

staff do that was incompatible with government policy? File the

evidence. Present the information.

"

(12) Explain how the research and development division

functioned as an autonomous work group distinct work distinctly

different from the other autonomous divisions in the Department

of Education.

"

(13) Tell the House why you had a research and development

division for seven months, three weeks, and three days, and

five hours.

"

(14) Does the government have an educational policy?

"You have my full permission to discuss any of the above

topics or other related information. I would not want to think

the public or the House was denied information or the

opportunity for open debate about such an important issue as

the current condition of the educational enterprise because of

my grievance procedure. I urge you to hold, in your own words,

an 'open and frank debate' on the floor of the House."

That is the letter from Stanley Knight to the Minister.

Copies were sent to: Mr. D. Barrett, Premier; Mr. W. Bennett,

Leader of the Opposition; Mr. D. Anderson, Liberal leader; and

Dr. S. Wallace, Conservative leader.

The questions I raised yesterday are all contained in there. There are other

things as well, Madam Minister, but the questions I raised yesterday are all

in there. It is perfectly clear that the excuse you gave — that you didn't want

to jeopardize this man's and other people's rights in the grievance procedure

— is, as far as he is concerned, a phony one. He wants information presented

to this House. He wants his name cleared.

We've had the case before of John Bremer being attacked

publicly and then material not being brought forward to back up

those charges. You have the case of this man and his colleagues

being fired in a most curious way, the implication being that

something is wrong; fine for us now to perhaps understand

better, but perhaps four or five years from now there it is

shown on their record that their probationary period was

terminated this way, it will reflect very much to their

disadvantage. These people have been treated in a shabby,

shoddy way by the Minister and by the department. There is

every reason for information to be brought forward so the

public, the Legislature, and indeed, even the government

backbenchers can determine whether or not they were reasonably

treated.

I said yesterday, I said today: I am not here defending or

rejecting their political positions. I am not here worried

about whether they are radicals or conservatives or anything of

that nature. I am here worried about some of the fundamental

questions on education they have raised. I am here worried

about a procedure in handling civil servants which is arbitrary

and thoroughly unfair.

Mr. Chairman, the estimates, on page 68, contain the vote

for the budget for the research and development division. The

Minister's estimates contain a budget for the research and

development division. It is perfectly obvious that we should

know, now that she has canned the division, to what purpose we

are voting these moneys. We won't be voting them for the

purpose in the book, according to what we know now. It is a

clear case of us being asked to vote for moneys when the

purpose for which the moneys are voted evaporated when these

people were fired.

The fact is that there is even a wage increase for those

people. There is even a promotion for Stanley Knight right in

the budget! He goes up to level 4 from level 3, and yet we are

told he is incompetent and no good. Yet when the budget was

being drawn up, when the Education people were putting it

together, they thought he was so good they were going to

promote him and pay all his friends more, pay all the people

who worked with him more. Now we are told somehow or another it

is all a no-no.

I would like to know why in this publication, "The

Department of Education, 1975", which was printed in January,

1975, we find so little reference to research and development,

and why we find so little reference to the research and

development division. Is it that this publication was prepared

with the full knowledge that these people were going to be

scuppered? Was this prepared after the budget, after a decision

has been taken, and then the decision was later on, at the very

last minute, put to the people

[ Page 1332 ]

concerned? Mr. Chairman, it is an important question.

They were fired, as I mentioned yesterday, most

unceremoniously — a deputy sheriff delivering the paper firing

one particular individual who was sick at the time. Why was it

in the budget that they were thought good enough to pay more

to, to promote, and in this document which came in January, you

have references to them suppressed? Was there some plot in the

department? Were they attempting to make these people

scapegoats?

We all know the public is concerned about basic education,

basic linguistic skills. We all know that they are concerned

about the three R's. Has the Minister decided she is going to

make scapegoats of these people? — arbitrarily, unfairly make

scapegoats of them so the government can reverse itself and

start looking small-c-conservative in the educational

system.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Hey, watch it!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Is that the purpose? Were they simply

hired to be fired? Were they used as scapegoats so that the NDP

backbenchers, and the teachers who worked with the NDP in the

last election and thought there would be progress and change,

will indeed be disappointed and the finger of blame can be

pointed to these particular people? Yet were they simply set up

to be cut down in this way?

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is time that this

House found out. The Minister has a copy of that letter,

undoubtedly. It is addressed to her, April 15 date. There are

questions there in black and white. There are questions I put

yesterday, which are in the Blues of Hansard . She can

consult that. I would like to know. I would like to get some

answers.

She is smiling happily now. She realizes, Mr. Chairman, that in just

two and a half hours her estimates get pulled and she can always throw

in a few backbenchers to stall some of that time. But the opposition

want answers. We have a new system...and she is House leader, so I

think it is appropriate that we say a word about this. She is House

leader under a new system which destroys the effectiveness of estimates

discussion because it does not allow us to get down to the nut

problems, the nitty-gritty problems. It allows them to be avoided by

the government putting the Minister's estimates on the shelf. We know

that is what is happening. We find it curious — in fact, no longer

curious — that as soon as we got to marketing boards the Minister of

Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich'

s) estimates hit the shelf, We know

full well there are changes which now make it impossible to get

answers, even as we used to do. We now know it is impossible to go

after a Minister or things in his estimates which are of real concern

to the public of British Columbia. We know full well that the back

bench can stall off any determined effort by the opposition to get

facts from Ministers. We know that can be done now under the new rules

and is being done, so no wonder she is smiling. But I think I should

point that out and say that she is failing in her duty to education in

the province, to the individuals concerned, who, I think, have served

her loyally — I presume they did. Certainly they were not fired for

disloyalty.

She is failing in her duty to teachers and to parents by not

dealing with some of the major questions that there are. These

are some of the questions. I raised some yesterday and some

more came out of this letter which I had to read out fully

because I just got it, as I mentioned, a few minutes ago.

I would like her to start answering because it is too simple

to sweep things under the rug, as has been done with other

Ministers to date. It is too simple for the New Dictatorial

Party to ignore real questions in estimates now. It is just too

easy, and we know it is. People in the gallery know it is. The

press know it is. It is no longer possible to go after a

Minister. It is no longer possible to do what you, yourself,

Madam Minister, and the man sitting on your left (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) did effectively under the previous administration.

I never thought the day would come when I would have to

admit that the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), who at least

allowed discussion — at four and five in the morning, but at

least allowed discussion — had a better system than the New

Dictatorial Party that is now in power.

I pose these questions. I am well within my time limit. I

would like the Minister to stand up in the remainder of my time

and give some answers.

MR. WALLACE: I raised some of these questions also

yesterday, Mr. Chairman. I realize that it is going to be a

waste of time to go over that ground again, but just at the

outset I would say that I completely and totally reject the

concept which the Minister outlined that we, in the opposition,

do not have the right to raise the kind of questions which I

raised yesterday in relation to evidence which suggests that

something is far wrong within the internal administration of

the Minister's department. I will just repeat, and then move

on, that it is ridiculous to suggest that taxpayers who are

putting up $754 million for education in this province don't

have the right to question the internal administration of the

department. I never heard such a ridiculous suggestion in my

life. We are just a bunch of dummies if we are sitting on this

side of the House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh?

MR. WALLACE: I said "if." That's a conditional word, Mr.

Minister. If we are expected to sit here and

[ Page

1333 ]

agree to the spending of $754 million when we consider that

there are some internal situations in the department as a

result of which this government, whether it knows it or not,

has lost public confidence in the field of education.

I have many other questions I would like to ask in that same

area of the research and development branch, but it is obvious

that the Minister isn't going to answer, and I think it would

be a waste of my 30 minutes to pursue the matter again. But I

think I could ask some questions, Mr. Chairman, that do not

relate directly to the content of the grievance dispute.

If the Minister wouldn't mind listening to what I have to

say, she might be able to give me an answer. I gather that at

least the research and development committee existed for a

certain length of time. I would like to know the cost of its

operation up until the time it was terminated. That's a simple

enough question.

Under the research and development committee functions, I

believe that two committees were set up; one was a finance

committee and one was entitled the "Right to Education

Committee." With the abolition — or whatever word you might

choose to use — regarding the research and development

commission, I wonder what has happened to these two committees

that were set up and who is chairing the finance committee, in

particular.

I would like to know also, in the light of the Minister's

comment yesterday that we shouldn't even be discussing this,

what appointments will be made to the research and development

commission in the meantime. Or is it a fact that since there is

a grievance procedure pending, the Minister, in fact, is not in

a position to appoint successors to Dr. Knight and his

colleagues? If this is the case, how long will it be until we

can expect to see the new research and development committee,

or its successor, appointed?

Could the Minister tell us, in that regard, what the policy

of her department is in regard to this particular division? As

the former speaker mentioned, the status of the individual in

charge has been raised from grade 3 to grade 4, which would

seem to me to give the research and development branch even

greater prestige, or this is surely a recognition by the

Minister of the very important status of the research and

development committee.

The most important question of all is that the budget under

vote 44 outlines proposed expenditure of $2.3 million by a

commission or committee that doesn't exist.

You know, Mr. Chairman, if you think that we ask a lot of questions on this

side of the House, it's because some of them are pretty obvious. We've just

realized that this group of highly educated and highly skilled professionals

who were all turfed out of their jobs unceremoniously were allocated in vote

44 potential spending of $2.3 million. In the light of all these recent events,

and the disappearance of said committee, I think it's a very legitimate question

to ask who's going to spend the $2.3 million. Or will that $2.3 million not,

in fact, now be spent because research and development can't continue in the

absence of the people who were booted out of their jobs?

I do feel that we're absolutely entitled to ask the question

that I asked yesterday and that the Liberal leader also asked:

was the work of the researchers evaluated in the usual manner

as applies to civil servants in the first three months of

office and in the first six months of office? It's my

understanding and my information that the Public Service

Commission of this province is very disturbed at the techniques

and procedures that were used by the Deputy Minister in his

handling of this rather sordid and unhappy situation in the

dismissal of these, as I say, highly professional experts in

the field of education. I think it's reasonable to ask whether

or not that kind of failure to evaluate.... Or if it was

evaluated, it's very simple for the Minister to tell us. But if

the work was not evaluated and the Deputy Minister took the

decisions, which were approved by the Minister, then they were

certainly setting a precedent which should make a whole lot of

civil servants in this province shake in their boots, because

the same could happen to them.

It's a little bit like some of the other situations I

mentioned in this House earlier. This is very strange coming

from a government which in large measure was elected because it

promised a greater respect for the employment rights and, in

fact, the rights of individual citizens in every area, whether

it be related to employment or freedom of speech or

discrimination with relation to sex — and a whole lot of other

areas of human rights and individual rights which this

government campaigned on so actively. I think that when we look

at the sorry events within this department, one has to ask

whether this government hasn't lost a great deal of the vision,

or the espoused vision, which it presented to the voters back

in 1972.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I'd like to ask another question. The Minister said that she

had carried out some investigation and found out that there was

no problem regarding harassment. I'm glad the Deputy Minister's

listening very carefully, taking notes, because I would like to

ask whether, two weeks before the decision was taken to dismiss

Dr. Knight, a grievance procedure had been launched against

John Walsh on a charge of intimidation and unfair management

practice, and that that grievance procedure is now at its

second stage of consideration.

If that is the case, it really doesn't square with the

[ Page 1334 ]

Minister's statement that she looked into the situation and

found that there was no evidence of harassment.

These are all straightforward questions, Mr. Chairman. I

don't see how they could impinge at all upon the outcome of the

actual hearing. We're not dealing with the content; we're

dealing with establishing certain facts which I feel the

Minister has a clear obligation to give to this House in

response to questions. In leaving that subject, I think the

Minister really cannot be considered blameless, even in the

position which she took yesterday in answer to my questions.

She said that she could make no comment since it would, in

fact, prejudice the chances of Dr. Knight and others from

receiving a fair hearing at the grievance-procedure

hearing.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, the written word from a speech

which the Minister made in Prince George shows quite clearly

that the Minister has already taken a public position and has

said that the reason these educators were dismissed was due to

the fact that they were trying to write the departmental policy

instead of following the recommendations which she considered

had been spelled out in the terms of reference when Dr. Knight

undertook employment with the government.

I'd like to quote from the Prince George Citizen

newspaper, dated January 27, 1975:

"Mrs. Dailly told a meeting of the Northern Interior Branch

of the B.C. School Trustees Association at Prince George that

the basic conflict between her and Knight was the latter's

assumption that he had a mandate to enact the government's

White Paper on education change. The Minister said she had made

it clear to the division that they did not have such a mandate

and that the White Paper was for discussion on educational

change. 'No director or superintendent can assume he has his

own priorities, and that the department priorities are

secondary. They cannot sit in isolation in their ivory towers

and make decisions. It is essential before any major

educational decision is made that all those directly affected

by the decision can participate.'"

I agree with that. Nobody should be sitting in an ivory tower in any field

of government research, divorced from the world that's going on around them

and the people whom they're there to serve. All the point I'm making is that

the Minister was being just a little holier-than-thou when she said, yesterday,

that we shouldn't be debating this because it would compromise the people who

had a grievance. If anything could have compromised them on that basis, it's

right there in the Prince George Citizen on the date of January 27. So let's

not play around with implications that we have no right to discuss this issue

from this side of the House. It's a very hot, topical public issue — as, indeed,

it should be.

I just want to try and cover a few fast points in the last

15 minutes that I have. It bothers me a great deal to read the

Minister's speech to the B.C. Teachers Federation. The number

of times the word "control" appears in that speech really has

me worried, because, frankly, I don't think anybody's trying to

control the educational system.

But I'd like to quote part of the Minister's speech. On page

6 of the printed copy which the Minister circulated, she

said:

"We are in a period of intense struggle for the control of

public education because of the fact that several levels of the

educational community are frequently at odds as to the

direction which educational reform should proceed."

And there's some other part of that paragraph less relevant,

but she finishes up by saying:

"I find that the majority of teachers I have talked to are

pleased with the idea of decentralization and the opportunity

for more input into the programme and curricula of the

schools." And that's good. "They are pleased with the idea that

they have a right to participate in decision-making which

affects them and their students, but in the final analysis they

are not asking for control."

I agree. Later on, at the end of that speech the Minister

finishes up by saying:

"I want to say, too, that you as teachers and

administrators, and I as Minister, do not have an easy job." I

agree with that, for sure. "We are in the centre of the

struggle for control of public education.

"We are faced with the dilemma of maintaining a common

public school system in a diverse, pluralistic society. But I

do believe that if we can maintain a good working relationship,

a partnership facing up to this dilemma, and not become

threatened by it or defensive, we will be able to serve well

the needs of the students in our care."

Now, everybody's shouting around me this afternoon that I'm

naive and that I'm not aware of some struggle to control.

If this is such a deep division of opinion that the

government considers that there is some bitter struggle for

control — and I'm so naive as not to see where it is — I hope

the Minister will get up and tell us who the adversaries are in

this control struggle. The more you read of the Minister's

statements, the more you get the impression that she's

constantly fighting off some kind of palace revolt. I really

don't know if the forces fighting for this control are within

her department or without the department. What's the state of

the battle right now? Maybe the Minister could tell us.

[ Page 1335 ]

But if there is to be one theme running through the

Minister's keynote speech to the teachers, it was that theme

that there's a battle for control. Well, I want to make it very

plain that some measure of centralized control by the Minister,

any Minister, is essential, if only to justify our

responsibility to scrutinize the spending of the $754 million.

So I don't disagree with some measure of centralized control,

but as I said, yesterday, we're debating the administrative

responsibility of the Minister, and I feel that that

centralized authority is fully compatible with distribution of

varying degrees of authority to the boards, the teachers and

all those involved.

I'm wondering if the Minister isn't confusing the eagerness

and willingness of various groups to be involved in education;

if she's not confusing that very well-motivated wish with some

fear that different groups are trying to take over her

department. The Minister is shaking her head.

Let me read two of the questions she asks in her speech:

"Which single community of interest will exercise control to

the exclusion of others?" Now nobody in their right mind wants

that to happen, and so if it's in danger of happening, maybe

the Minister will tell us which group is the one trying to take

over.

The second question is exactly the question which should be

asked: "Can all the communities of interest integrate their

forces for a combined attack on the common problem?" Surely to

goodness that has to be the wise and reasonable aim of all of

us who are interested in education. Again I have to ask the

question: can the Minister expect that kind of harmony and

integration to flourish among groups in the light of the way in

which she has handled these recent problems with the very

people who are supposed to be demonstrating alternatives for

change? How can the Minister expect confidence and harmony and

a commitment by teachers, parents, pupils, taxpayers and

politicians to contribute to this appropriate change when the

kind of actions taken by the Minister have been, to put it

kindly, somewhat arbitrary?

I mentioned a moment ago the tremendously frequent use of

the word "control" and the last sentence where the Minister

states that everything should work out all right if we don't

feel threatened, or if we're not defensive. I've come to the

very sad conclusion that if there are two words that sum up the

Minister of Education's attitude and her actions in the last

few months, it's these two words. The Minister feels

threatened, by what I don't know, and she's being very

defensive.

I think that's a very serious charge for me to m ake, and I realize how serious

a charge it is. I only make it after a great deal of consideration of all I've

heard and read, and the debate I've listened to. If the Minister wishes to deny

that charge, that she feels neither threatened nor defensive, why is it that

she's not answering some of the questions I've asked, which could clarify the

whole situation very quickly?

In my last few minutes, I'd like to touch quickly on one or

two other points. First of all, I think that the Minister's

posture during the recent strike of janitors in the greater

Victoria area was nothing less than a disgrace. We're getting

into society at a time....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'll tell you what I would do. That's right.

I'll tell you.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh Roy! Go back to sleep, Roy.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): You woke me

up.

MR. WALLACE: Sorry I woke you up.

We're in a society where, in my view, since you're asking my

opinion, the Minister of Education has a responsibility to see

that our children get the education system which is provided

for in the Public Schools Act. I totally reject, and I'll go on

rejecting regardless of political expediency or otherwise, this

concept that the Minister of Education has to keep her hands

off a bitter public controversy because it's essentially a

labour dispute.

Of course it's essentially a labour dispute, but the

Minister has a responsibility to maintain, as best she can

under the circumstances, education for our children under the

Public Schools Act.

The other day I extracted from the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) a clear confirmation that in his

department certain alternatives were taken to ensure that the

recipients of social welfare would continue to receive service

during the strike of the CUPE workers. I think that was a wise

and sound decision to find some alternative way in which

recipients could receive the service they were entitled to

under the law.

All I'm saying is, surely to goodness we can do the same

thing with the education of our children. Are we to think and

try and accept that 20 or 30 people not directly related to the

education of our children in Victoria can bring the whole

system to a halt? I'm saying — as I presented in a petition to

this House — that there are alternative ways in which some

educational services could have been provided without any

element of strikebreaking.

It's really ironic and sad.... I have a clipping here from

1968 or 1969 — I won't waste time to find it — when this

Minister spoke in this House as an opposition Member and

pleaded with the government to get into the field of

educational TV. Here we are in

[ Page 1336 ]

1975 with a strike on our hands in Victoria and a

cablevision station that operates four hours a day. What did

the Minister do to try and make use of that service during the

strike when our kids were getting one-hour-a-day education?

I've checked with the cablevision station, and my information

is that no attempt was made whatever to use their facility.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm talking about the Minister's

responsibility. Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have the same kind

of evasive answer from the Minister. I'm trying to make the

point that, in our view, the responsibilities of the Minister

are a little different from the offhand way in which the

Minister takes her position.

Interjections.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): It's the school board's

responsibility.

MR. WALLACE: I'm telling you the views of many parents, and

it isn't enough to slough off.... No, it isn't enough for the

Minister to slough off the responsibility by saying it was all

the school board's problem.

The essential issue here, in our view, is that the Minister

is responsible for sustaining educational services as provided

for in the Public Schools Act. While I'm not overlooking for

one minute the difficulties of labour problems — I'm not

overlooking that at all — I'm saying that if it was possible

for one department of your government, namely the Department of

Human Resources, to maintain services which otherwise would

have been picketed — and they wouldn't have crossed picket lines — there were alternatives that could have been used. I think

that in this respect the Minister was less than diligent in her

duty to sustain these educational services in the greater

Victoria area.

She keeps saying: "Well, the school board didn't ask." I'm

saying that there are lots of areas of responsibility for

government Ministers where they shouldn't need to wait to be

asked. The greater good of the greater number, I thought, was a

principle that was generally well established over the

centuries in the democratic idea. For the Minister to shelter

behind the fact that the school board didn't ask her if they

could work out some alternative ... I suggest that she's sadly

lacking in initiative.

They didn't ask for a mediator. They didn't say: "Keep your

hands off." They said they didn't want a mediator.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Scotty, I don't think you've actually

talked to the school board on this.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think you've actually spoken to

the board on this.

MR. WALLACE: I've spoken on three or four or five occasions

at great length, Madam Minister. I would suggest that you

withdraw that remark. I've spoken to Mr. Ross, the chairman of

the school board, right through the dispute on three or four

occasions at great length.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly withdraw the

remark. It's just interesting that the impressions of your

talks with the school board completely differ from the ones

that they gave to me.

MR. WALLACE: Well, if the Minister's so keen to justify that

position, I hope she will get up and talk in more detail after

I sit down, because she didn't do very well yesterday. You

haven't done very well today in answering questions. We're

getting a little fed up with the evasion....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, come on! She....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I will have to sit down; under the new

rules I'll have to sit down in three minutes whether I like it

or not. Maybe that's what's wrong with this government. When

the heat gets on to the government, they're taking refuge in a

variety of techniques, including closure.

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

Chair?

MR. WALLACE: I just want to finish with a comment on the

whole question of functional literacy, so-called. It again

raised the spectre of television. It seems to me that

television is at one time the curse and the blessing in the

educational field. It's a curse because our kids sit in front

of cartoons and garbage of one kind or another, which distorts

their discriminatory development and certainly takes time away

that in former years would be used by reading books or by

developing their reading and writing skills. Instead of that,

our children get stuck — mine included, I'm sorry to say — in

front of the TV screen and watch some of the most ridiculous

rubbish. Yet at the same time TV offers a modern technique

which, unfortunately, we're not using hardly at all — or to a

degree which is really just scratching the surface of its real

potential.

I hope that the Minister, who had already touched

[ Page 1337 ]

upon educational TV and has mentioned, I think, in her

budget speech that we were getting into it shortly....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Hon. Member. Your light is now on;

you have two minutes.

MR. WALLACE: What can a guy do in two minutes?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, do you want to

know?

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if the Minister is going to answer

some of the questions I asked her, if she could also tell us,

with some kind of greater detail than she mentioned in the

budget speech, what the potential is, or what are the

government plans in her department to really get into

educational TV. Furthermore, could she tell us what, if any,

methods of educational TV she envisages for the future to get

around or to be available where the more normal and formal

methods of education within the four walls of a classroom are

not possible, as in the case of a strike, of which I am sure we

will have others in the future?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I think it is time that government

Members are recognized. I think it is time that the people in

British Columbia really know what the story is, instead of the

story that the opposition is spreading around this

province.

I would first like to say that I oppose the amendment, and I

am proud to say that I do. The Minister of Education in this

province is an energetic, hardworking, dedicated Minister. I

would just like to say before I start that, in my view, she is

a credit to Women's Year. She shows what can happen, the type

of work that women are capable of, that they are capable of

just as high quality work as men, and this Minister is

performing it. I'll place her credentials any day with many

other people in this province, including the Social Credit

government, the past government.

It is surprising to me that the mover and seconder of this

amendment are Social Credit Members. After living with Mr.

Brothers, and after seeing the type of work and the lack of

educational improvement in this province under Mr. Brothers,

they have enough gall to stand up in this House and move an

amendment against this very fine Minister.

The Member who was speaking prior to me mentioned that somebody was trying

to take control. I said he was naive, and I say he is naive. If you don't think

that Mr. MacFarlan was on a power kick last year, he's mistaken. Mr. MacFarlan

didn't represent the feeling of the people throughout this province, and I say

he didn't represent the feeling of the teachers throughout this province. I

am very glad to see that we have a new president for the BCTF. I am looking

forward to constructive work with the Minister to try to improve education in

this province to what people in this province want; not what the opposition

wants, not to what Mr. MacFarlan wants, but to what the people in the Province

of British Columbia desire.

There have been many fine programmes instituted under this

Minister in a very short two and a half years. She took over

what I would say was a sinking ship, maybe even a sinking oil

tanker. It was a disaster. I'm not blaming the people in the

department. I'm blaming the initiative that was put forward by

the past Minister and by the past government.

There has been co-ordination since this Minister took over.

Education, Human Resources, Health, Labour and the

Attorney-General's department work together now instead of

working at crossroads, and you can see improvements throughout

the province in many areas where they are working together.

They fail to mention the fact that kindergarten is now a

part of the school system in this province. I live in a rural

riding where people had to donate all of their own time; they

had to bus the children to school, and they had to finance it

totally, in most cases from their own pockets. I say this is a

very progressive step by the Minister.

She took off the freeze on classroom construction and gym

construction that was imposed by the past government, and they

talk about progressive education. I would like to see

progressive education in this province without proper

schoolrooms! They thought there would be. Where were they going

to learn?

She improved pupil-teacher ratio dramatically to one of the

best in Canada. For the Conservative Member (Mr. Wallace) to

stand up and use the strike in the Victoria area against the

Minister ... I would like him to take a look at Conservative

Ontario and what happened there last year, and the lengthy

strike in that province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LEWIS: How much guts did the Conservatives have then?

How much initiative did they have in television in trying to

get the message across to the students?

There have been very innovative programmes under this

Minister. I am going to zero in on just one area. There are

many other areas, but in my time I don't have time to cover

them.

In BCIT we have the very innovative programme under Industry

Services. This programme was initiated in 1969 by the Socred

government, and at that time they were really bog goers — one

instructor for the whole of the province. One instructor and

one course.

[ Page 1338 ]

That's innovation for you.

In 1972, when we took over, there was still one instructor,

but 15 courses. One instructor was supposed to handle those 15

courses. There is no way that that instructor could cope with

that type of workload.

Since we became the government there have been dramatic

improvements in that area. In 1975 we now have 60 instructors,

and those 60 instructors are working on 250 different courses

throughout this province.

These causes, in my opinion, were highly innovative. They

were job-creative courses working out in all parts of the

province, not tying it into one central core like Vancouver or

Victoria — all over the province these courses were

initiated.

I would just like to name some of the programmes that were

initiated under this very innovative department. In Highways,

we have many courses throughout the province where they are

working with highways. One of them is the technical math that

is being taught throughout the province to many, many people

who worked up through the lines to foreman without having the

proper chance for education.

There are areas like Grand Forks where there are students

involved, Fort St. John, Nelson, Golden, Penticton, Nanaimo,

Vancouver, Kamloops, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Hope, Pouce

Coupe, Vernon — just to name a few. These are very good

programmes, programmes that are needed by the working people

out in those areas.

MR. CHABOT: Who gave you that information?

MR. LEWIS: Who gave me that information? It is public

information. If the opposition had enough initiative to go and

look for it and see what is happening in the Department of

Education...

They also worked with Seaforth Plastics. This company had a

very bad fire in the last year, the men were put out of work.

The industry services programme set up a working programme with

Seaforth Plastics during the reconstruction period of their

plant to train their employees, to upgrade their training. This

was very, very important because Canada Manpower worked along

with them and these people never lost their payroll during that

time, yet they had a chance to go ahead and improve their

skills. I say that this is a very good programme, the type of

programme that should have been considered throughout this

province throughout the years.

They also worked with Industry Services through BCIT. That's

funded by the Department of Education in case you don't

remember.

They're working with Oakalla Prison, with the inmates in the prison. They work

with prisoners who can get out of the institution and take courses to upgrade

their educational skills in this province. I think that this is a very much-needed

area, an area that has been neglected throughout the past. Oakalla in particular

was neglected because there weren't facilities in that institution where they

could be trained.

In the Attorney-General's department, Industry Services is

working in the court system in training deputy sheriffs,

justices of the peace, court workers, and also, in the

Institute of Court Management. I would just like to say right

now that the service that this sheriffs' service is supplying

in this province is going to be needing many, many hours of

training. This is a programme where we have the training

available right in the province. We have it available

throughout the province. We have it available from BCIT

through Industry Services.

Registered nurses — B.C. has the only programme for

registered nurses for upgrading their skills. As everybody

knows, if they are out of the nurse's occupation for five

years, their licenses become invalid. BCIT has made this course

available all across Canada. It is not just tied into B.C. It's

available all across Canada. People are taking it in Sudbury,

Ontario; Prince George, B.C.; Perry Sound, Ontario; Spruce

Grove, Alberta — all across the country. Many, many people in

B.C. use this very necessary training.

They have also been involved in native training programmes.

In Bella Bella, they train natives there in hotel management

for the hotel the Indian people are looking after. In Campbell

River, they had a course there training Indian band managers.

In Port Simpson, they trained the supervisory staff for the

Port Simpson cannery.

All these programmes are directed towards people and are

directed towards upgrading their skills so that they can

compete in society. I think that most of the discussion in this

Minister's estimates has been directed towards the classroom,

but I say this is a very, very important happening out in

society today, with adult education and the chance that BCIT

and Industry Services are providing.

They also trained counselors for the mentally retarded

workshops. They train them in how to work with the people and

how to improve their skills and how to train those people in

how to get along in society and enjoy life the same as the rest

of us.

They also are involved in the training of senior fireman

officers throughout the province. They are working with the

fish and wildlife conservation branch training officers.

They are also working in the area of new, legislation. When the Crown brings

in new legislation, such as the sheriffs' services and many other changes which

this progressive government has made since we have been elected, it also requires

very trained people to take over these jobs. This is the type of work that the

Industry Services has been performing through

[ Page

1339 ]

BCIT.

They are innovative programmes and yet the opposition will

stand up in this House and say that this Minister hasn't moved

in the area of education. This is just one of the areas.

In night schools in 1972, when we became the government,

there was 2,000 students enrolled with BCIT in the Vancouver

area. In 1975 there's 10,000 students who are enrolled there —

adults who are upgrading their needs. There are courses

available for cash register operators; they are working with

the B.C. Ferry Authority in upgrading the employees there; they

are training chief stewards, cash register operators, and they

are even bar operators for the time when the Prince Rupert

ferry has a bar on it.

These are all areas where the adults needed training, and

often in the past these people came in from out of the

province. They came from England, the United States, but

through this service they are making jobs available to

Canadians and British Columbians.

They are training bridge inspectors which both the highways

department and the contractors are using extensively. These

people are being given skills which were not available to them

from a school in this area before. They have a course at the

present time on avalanche stabilization and the effects of

avalanches.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That came under

Highways.

MR. LEWIS: This is taught to people who come from ski

resorts, wildlife branches, and the highways authority is also

utilizing the information that is available from these people.

You have to remember that these programmes are brought forward

by the BCIT and Industry Services when there is a demand. They

are not courses that have been here for years.

MR. CHABOT: Filibuster! Filibuster!

MR. LEWIS: Any time there is a need the service has been

able to fill that need by bringing in instructors and training

further instructors.

Now this just came at a good time — they are also teaching

politicians how to handle themselves in front of TV cameras,

and we can all use it.

MR. CHABOT: You should take it. You and Roy.

MR. LEWIS: Now that programme is available to the

politicians and I would suggest that many of us take the

opportunity and use it. Not just Roy and I. I can name a few

down there.

They have also taught nurses in regard to operating nurses in the Kamloops

area and in Vancouver. That's another area that was available in the province

last year. They worked with CP Air last year in a training programme to staff

the new 747 and the course was called "Avionics." That was a course where the

radio technicians and electronic technicians could work together to take over

new equipment that was installed on these planes. These were all very innovative

programmes, all were introduced here in B.C. through BCIT and introduced through

Industry Services.

They are presently working with a training programme at

Kitimat. Alcan found themselves in a soft market this year for

aluminum and 207 employees were to be laid off. Through the

Department of Education, Canada Manpower and BCIT have

initiated a programme where they will be training on the job....

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): That wasn't Bill 31

either.

MR. LEWIS: No, that wasn't Bill 3 1. These are all good

things for the province the same as Bill 31 was. Bill 31 was a

good bill. You just haven't realized the benefits from it

yet.

The programme that was initiated at Kitimat was one of the

first anywhere in Canada. It was a programme that saw that

those 207 people were able to continue on a training course at

full pay supported by the Department of Education and Canada

Manpower.

I would like to thank Industry Services for working along

with them and showing what can be done in the Department of

Education and under this fine Minister in the Province of

British Columbia.

There was also a programme instituted known as the sandwich

programme in which they worked with Oakalla, Fish and Wildlife

and various other departments and to give you an idea of how

this programme works in Fish and Wildlife, they brought in the

conservation officers throughout B.C., the ones who hadn't had

a chance to upgrade their skills. They would spend one week at

BCIT taking training in the classroom, then three months on the

job. They would come back for one more week at BCIT, go back

out in the field for three months again and then the last two

weeks when they came back to the classrooms they worked with

the Vancouver Police Academy in regard to law enforcement

within their service.

After they had gone through this cycle they were granted a

certificate which showed they were qualified in their area —

and they truly were because they had been brought up to a par

with other conservation officers who had been hired and trained

recently.

They are also involved in a training programme in the

province at the present time with 1,200 employees and they are

upgrading the working skills of all of those employees. Now the

company wishes to have its name left off the list because they

realized

[ Page 1340 ]

in the past years they were negligent in not retraining.

But, then, you also have to say that the opportunity wasn't

there. Past governments didn't take the initiative in providing

the type of services that have been available through BUT. I

would like to thank the Minister for doing this at a time when

we have high unemployment. It is a very positive step.

You know, when we took over as government in 1969, the whole

of the industry services received $12,000. Oh, I'm sorry — we

took over in '72.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Now everybody

is sorry.

MR. LEWIS: In 1969, $12,000 was spent towards upgrading

adult education and skills. In 1975, we're spending $1.8

million, on this same programme. We've extended it throughout

the province. We're giving people in all parts of the province

a chance to keep up with what happens in the urban areas. I

would just like to say that I have no hesitation in opposing

this amendment. We have a fine Minister of Education. The

opposition is being negative. They're looking for news coverage

regardless of the cost of what it does to education. I think

it's time they become a positive opposition, work with the

Minister of Education for very good changes in this

province.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I've been waiting for the return of a

number of people to the House, who have made some points

earlier in the debate. Now I see some of them have returned,

and I notice one has gone again — the Liberal leader. I'll just

have to leave his questions for the time being. I notice the

official opposition critic is here, as he is, I must say, most

of the time. So I will start off with some of the points which

he made.

He was questioning, and expressing his concern about changes

which hadn't been made, and he felt that they were rather slow

in coming about. Following that he went on to talk about the

pupil-teacher ratio and the fact that, I suppose, there'd been

a slowdown there. Then he mentioned the capital expense

approval projects which apparently he felt should be speeded

up, and I agree, and I talked about that yesterday. Then he

mentioned finance, and the only point I want to make to the

Hon. Member is does he consider those areas to be basic major

educational change?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): No.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. I'm glad to hear that, because I certainly don't

either. They are areas that I think we all accept you need movement in, and

I think that we have moved in those areas. We have had, as I said, to slow down

somewhat on the pupil-teacher ratio, but we have a commitment to continue in

that direction.

As far as finance, we do have our committee working on that

now. I was just concerned, however, that the official

opposition has to date, really, not spelled out for the people

of the province, what they consider, to tell us what their

party policies are for major educational change.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Because, you know, we get the same thing

from the Conservative leader, and from the Liberal leader. I

will give credit to the Member from the Social Credit Party who

has certainly attempted to zero in on a number of issues — but

this afternoon we have listened to the Conservative leader and

the Liberal leader use up their time primarily on the whole

matter of the one division of my department, and what happened

in that division. Then, at the same time they complain that

they are not having an opportunity to get into details in this

department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You answer the questions you want.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think it is most unfortunate, most

irresponsible, actually, with a department the size of

Education. I do not think you're doing justice to your

constituents who send you here to spend your whole time on the

one area and, may I say, to have the Hon. Member from Victoria

stand up and spend most of his time on reading a letter which

was handed to him today, almost becoming the advocate for this

particular person when he's quite aware that the public

grievance is going to take place — that that particular

individual will have an opportunity to present his case there

and so will the department.

Many of the questions you were asking answers for, I say

again to you, will encroach on what will take place in that

hearing.

Very specifically, however, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) did ask some specific questions about research and

development, which I feel certainly can be answered here, and I

want to make it quite clear that I am not a Minister who sits

here and wants to evade answering questions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fourteen questions and not one of them

answered.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I will answer the questions when you

provide responsible questions, and ones which any Minister can

answer without encroaching on proper procedures which are going

to take place.

Before we go on to the research and development questions

asked by the Member for Oak Bay, I would

[ Page 1341 ]

like to go back to the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), who did make, I thought, some good points on the

whole matter of literacy. It's obvious that he's concerned, and

he's done a considerable amount of reading on this. The only

point where I would disagree with you, Hon. Member, is when you

seem to endorse the idea that literacy will be restored if we

in this province will turn to more structured systems.

Maybe you have an opportunity to correct that, but you did

suggest that the tests that you had looked at, the research

that you had read, did suggest that in the less structured

classrooms, illiteracy was down. In other words, then I would

interpret that....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Would you agree with that? Well, I would

assume, since you used it, that you endorse that statement. My

feeling is, of course, it's not so much the structure of the

classrooms. We want to leave the freedom of the teacher in that

area. It has been the unstructured programmes of the '60's.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As one, right. Yes, that's one area, but I

think you would agree with me that it was the unstructured

programming, the looseness of the guidelines in curriculum

which were given to the teachers of the '60's, which did leave

a vacuum in the basic skill-teaching. You're quite right when

you agree that we should do something about this, and I won't

go over it again in the House. I've repeated it. We are

planning our programme.

You did mention some concern about why we are having a

questionnaire first, and I want to just reiterate that that is

for the teachers to get their input on the areas that concern

them, and then following that will be the actual testing

procedure.

MR. SCHROEDER: Let's do it now.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, we are. We're starting right away on that

one and then, immediately after that, we will try and move in

to the testing, but I must tell you that, as you know, any

preparation of such tests in the functional literacy area has

to be done very skillfully and very carefully. That's why we're

not able to produce them just overnight. But the members of my

department, with assistance from teachers, et cetera, are

working on them right now. I do think it's unfortunate when the

term "permissive" is used because it has been misused to a

great degree also.

I think we all have one concern, and that is as you said: to keep a balance,

to build up the functional skills and, at the same time, create a school system

where the student has an opportunity to use his creativity

and imagination and, of course, become a good citizen. So it

certainly can never be one-sided and I was glad to hear you say

that you yourself become concerned at the thought of a

backlash, Mr. Member, which I think we must all be very wary of — that we do not lose, as the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) said, the good things; that we build on the good

things of the past.

Maybe I've left something out, Mr. Member, that you asked

me. That was all I had in my notes. There was the area that was

brought up by the Member for Oak Bay on R and D. You asked some

specific questions, Mr. Member. I'm just trying to find them

here.

I think first of all you asked how much did it cost to date,

and I just checked with my Deputy and my financial

superintendent. We don't have that figure here now, but I'll

see that you get it. They are not able to produce it right here

at this moment.

You also expressed concern that the research and development

personnel who had been there formerly and are no longer there.... You asked what had happened to the finance study. That

finance study was already underway with an internal body from

the department and it has now been expanded. I spoke on that in

the budget debate. It has now been expanded with trustee and

teacher representatives also. So the study on the whole matter

of a more equitable financing system was started quite a while

ago and is continuing.

The right to education is a very important one. It is moving

along quite well. The Berger family law commission, as you

know, also was studying this and one member from our

department, one of the consultants from R and D who is still

working as a consultant, worked on that committee with the

Berger commission and together they have put in many hours for

the production of a paper on the right to education which will

be released shortly, So I can assure you that both the ones

that you were concerned about are going on.

I was rather shocked may I say, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), when you asked what's going to happen with that vote.

Finally someone was looking at the votes in the book, you said,

and there's this money, around $2 million for research and

development, and there's no division. Now in the budget debate

I explained I thought very carefully in detail what was

happening in that area, and again I spoke on it since our

estimates started. So, for the third time, I would like to

repeat to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that the bulk of the vote

for research and development will be going to continue

financing innovative programmes, which the bulk of the vote

went for last year, and that's why it's expanded. There will be

solid research done. We also have a great number of requests

from individuals and groups

[ Page 1342 ]

across the province to finance innovative programmes.

We are working on a development in which we are putting

money into the area of Vancouver East to look at the particular

problems in that area as an example of a specific

socio-economic area which may have specific problems; to see if

the way we now hand out money for special education financing

is really appropriate. We now spend close to $20 million on

financing of special classes — not only special classes but

supportive services — and we are rather concerned whether we are

really getting — the question which was asked by one of the

other Members — our money's worth in this area. When I say our

money's worth, I mean: are the children benefiting from the

money spent in this area?

I am very proud of the work done by the people in the

supportive service department under Mr. Walsh, and he