[ Page 1493 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Statement Purchase of debentures by trustees of the Municipal Superannuation Fund. Hon. Mr. Hall — 1493

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates On vote 39.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1493

Mr. Schroeder — 1501

Mr. McGeer — 1502

Mr. McClelland — 1503

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1508

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1509

Mr. McClelland — 1511

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1511

Mr. McGeer — 1511

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1512

Mr. McGeer — 1512

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members to welcome 35 students from Claremont Senior Secondary School who will be visiting a little later in the morning.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would like the assembly to welcome a group under the leadership of Mrs. Gloria Moses from Lower Nicola of the Shulus Band, who are studying at Cariboo College.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I was asked a question a couple of days ago by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) about the compensation paid for the little cherry diseased trees being removed. I said at the time that the total compensation was $75. It is correct. Of this, $25 is coming from the provincial government, $25 from the B.C. Fruit Growers' Association, $25 from the cherry pool, and further compensation is being sought from the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: You want to put that on record as the correct answer.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's the correct answer.

Presenting reports.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file the 62nd annual report of the Superintendent of Insurance for 1973.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you have to ask leave because it's a statutory report. Just simply file it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At this time of the morning, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: At this time of the morning. You can do it without anyone noticing. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I file. But I need leave for this one: the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Family and Children's Law of March 19, 1974.

Leave granted.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to announce to the House that arrangements have been completed for the purchase of $6,800,000 worth of 9 per cent sinking-fund debentures due in 1994, at a purchase price of $98.75 per $100, by the trustees of the Municipal Superannuation Fund. This will result in a yield for the fund of approximately 9.15 per cent over the 20-year term.

For many years, employers and employees who are contributors to the fund have urged that the investment powers be changed to include a broader range of securities, particularly those of local governments and similar agencies where the investment return is higher. Members of the House will remember that in the last session the Municipal Superannuation Act was amended to permit investments to be made in the debentures or other securities of the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, and that has been done. I'm confident that this transaction will meet with the approval of the employers and employees who contribute to that fund as well as the local authorities who finance local capital projects through the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia.

I am pleased to announce to the House that $6,800,000 worth of 9 per cent fund debentures have been purchased at a very favourable price.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 39: Minister's Office, $77,408.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Yesterday I asked the Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) about one subject and one subject only, namely independent schools. I've yet to receive a reply to my statements or my request. I would like to remind her today that I'll be hoping to hear a reply today and will be waiting for it.

Briefly, the situation is that some 23,000 students are being educated in a system for which the entire cost comes from the parents or other benefactors who might assist. The provincial Treasury is completely free of costs for these students, despite the fact that parents spend large amounts of money in tax moneys for a school system they do not use. In terms of equity and justice, it's my view that this is grossly unfair and that the requests for assistance should be listened to. The Minister should elaborate on that oracular statement that the door for aid is closed but not locked, which I believe came from the

[ Page 1494 ]

Premier but may have come from her.

The fact is that a public service is being provided and no public financial assistance is going to the schools in question. I don't think it's fair that it should be this way. I think when we realize that they do provide the opportunity for more innovative and imaginative programmes outside of the bureaucratic system we presently have, the Minister certainly owes it to the people of British Columbia for an explanation as to why this government, like its predecessor, provides no assistance whatsoever.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The predecessor government, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), in answer to your comment, provided no help at all, despite the fact that they promised back in the early '50s before taking office....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that may be, and that was before I was old enough to vote. Thanks very much for your comment.

Now, another point I would like to raise at this time is the question of the BCIT staff. The B.C. Institute of Technology has a very good staff, an excellent staff, good teachers, competent people. I feel they have been treated rather poorly by the present government. They have requested, and I refer to their letter of October 25, 1973, to all Members of the assembly, amendments to former Bill 75, and they did not receive it. They in turn requested exemption from being considered government employees and being under the B.C. Government Employees Union. They again did not receive that.

There is a dispute here — and I've questioned the Minister on this during the question period in the Legislature over the past few weeks — about a salary and wage offer of 14 per cent which was offered to them one day and withdrawn the next. They claim it was withdrawn by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), whom they regard as having indeed betrayed them on this whole question. I would suggest that the Minister might well like to comment upon this as well because these people I don't think have been properly treated.

I'd like to refer for a moment or two, Mr. Chairman, to a letter dated March 7, 1974, received by me from an instructor at the B.C. Institute of Technology in which he says:

"The issue which will likely require the most persuasive effort is the attempts of the staff to obtain a salary adjustment prior to the establishment of a board of governors. The government agrees that an adjustment is justified but hopes to leave a settlement on the matter to a board of governors."

And here's the important paragraph, the one that the Provincial Secretary, I might add, disputed. He said in his letter:

"A written offer involving a pay increase of 14.5 per cent was made to the BCIT staff society on May 29, 1973, but was withdrawn the next day. The staff then received a 10 per cent increase given to other public servants for the year beginning April 1, 1973. It should be noted that other groups in the civil service, ferry workers, professional engineers, et cetera, received increases greater than the 10 per cent.

"Attached is a copy of the letter dated October 25, 1973, which was sent by the BCIT staff society to all Members of the Legislative Assembly. This letter provides details of the meddling by the B.C. Government Employees' Union and a very clear indication of the perfidious role of the Provincial Secretary in the various dealings with the staff of BCIT. The Provincial Secretary has ignored requests for an explanation of the withdrawal of the salary offer of last May, but has acknowledged the need for an adjustment in a radio interview with Jack Webster.

"I understand the BCIT staff society have recently requested a meeting to be arranged between the Hon. Mrs. Dailly, Hon. Mr. Hall, representatives of the Department of Education, Mr. A.E. Richardson of the Civil Service Commission and Mr. J. Fryer of the B.C. Government Employees' Union.

"The contention now is that the government should show good faith and assume the obligations of at least partially adjusting the salaries at BCIT rather than shifting the responsibilities to a new board. The total increase in salaries needed to achieve competitive levels will be an issue which could prevent the orderly commencement of collective bargaining with the board and might well be a continuing negative influence on the future of the institution."

I won't read the rest of the letter; I read perhaps about a third of it. But it's the same type of detail, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. The staff of BCIT have had their morale seriously affected by what they feel is meddling by the Provincial Secretary and by what they feel is unfair, unnecessary and unwise inclusion of their group with the civil servants of the province. I hope that on this subject, again, we're going to have a clear statement from the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, those are two areas I would like the Minister to comment on, and if we don't get it we'll have to repeat the request.

But there is another subject I'd like to touch on at

[ Page 1495 ]

this time....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, dear!

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was hearing noises from the back bench of the cabinet over there. Much more noise seems to come from that corner since the Premier got into such trouble. Interesting!

Now in preparation for this debate I looked at some of the statements made by the Minister of Education in previous debates. Somewhat over two years ago she had this to say:

"B.C. is one of the richest provinces per person, but the government has been going downhill in educational spending, at the same time making 'patchwork recommendations' instead of improving the public school system wholesale. In 1951 B.C. was leading Canada in educational effort, but by 1969 it was down to fourth among the provinces. The heavy-handed centralized structure of the Department of Education combined with unbelievably restrictive legislation could destroy the public school system.

"Financial policies of this government are apparently based on no philosophy but seem to point out the cold hard hand of a bookkeeper. B.C. could spend more but chooses not to do so.”

She asked the then Minister, Mr. Brothers: "How do you justify your continued comments that education is taking an increased share of the provincial budget?" She went on to point out that B.C. was the richest province per capita, but only fourth, as I mentioned, in terms of spending on education in terms of wealth.

Mrs. Dailly asked Brothers how he...justified "repeated comments that education is taking an ever-increasing share of the budget when the percentage of the total budget allotted to education has actually been dropping since 1965?"

That year it was 34.1 per cent of the provincial budget, and in 1972-1973 it's down to 30.9 per cent. Now I wonder where....

AN HON. MEMBER: We want Waldo.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm sure you would prefer Waldo, Mr. Member; I'm sure you would.

We'd like to know why, if in 1972 it was so bad to spend 30.9 per cent — and the Member for Burnaby (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was so critical of the government spending a smaller percentage of their budget on education why she's been so silent when this particular government has dropped the spending even further. It's now approximately 25 per cent — a substantial drop in the overall spending of the government.

The replies that we've heard so far are straight out of Brothers. It's the same old stuff except the figures are slightly varied and the speakers are slightly different.

I'd like her to answer that question. If she was critical about the percentage of the budget being devoted to education in 1972, now that the situation under her leadership has worsened so much, why is it that she is not speaking up?

On February 17 Mrs. Dailly said,

"The rebuttal to Brothers' claim of more educational services could be found in the budget speech itself, which showed that 30.9 per cent of total expenditure will go for education, which is actually a decline from the previous year. The cutback was bad enough, but what is really shocking is that the Minister of Education would not get to his feet and justify this decrease."

We feel today much as she did two years ago.

"The boards will be receiving grants this year from this government which will not allow them to even meet the basic non-controllable costs for such things as heating fuel, she said."

Once again a very, very interesting statement in the light of the budget and the estimates that we have before us now.

Oh, there were quotes about class size:

"The Minister pays lip service to the new goals in education about developing each child's potential. But how can this be accomplished when teachers will be faced with increasing class size this year? To stand up and say you believe in these goals and then not provide the resources for attaining them is shocking."

The Minister said this when she was in opposition two years ago.

Well, that was the philosophy and the attitude expressed by the Minister prior to becoming a Member of the government. Yet today, Mr. Chairman — and we've gone over this before today — we see precisely the same thing. We see a reduction in the amount of money being devoted to education in terms of a percentage of the budget. We see school boards being attacked for irresponsibility on the financial side when they attempt to implement the suggestions of the Minister on the programme side. And that's just an absurdity. This Minister has yet to give a decent explanation as to why this is happening.

It can be said, and it's been said before and it will undoubtedly be said again, that supplementary estimates, extra cash, will be found. But if after 18 months of this government they don't know how the money should be put into education and they cannot

[ Page 1496 ]

draw up an educational budget, something is obviously, radically wrong in the Department of Education; and one could only assume that it starts at the Minister's level.

We are in a situation where after 18 months of this government and one educational budget already, and one set of estimates already, they still have not put together a budget which we can discuss intelligently in the House, or estimates that we can discuss intelligently.

The excuse somehow that,"Well, we're going to add extra money later on if it's necessary, if they come and make a special case," is the old squeaky-wheel type of financing where the best advocate gets the assistance. The best hired lawyer perhaps coming over here on behalf of a school board who does the best job arguing a case will get the money for that school board. Others which are less skilled, or perhaps feel that they should be spending their money on kids instead of lawyers won't be getting the extra, because they won't be having the same type of advocacy over in Victoria.

It really is an indication of total financial incompetence when we have a government which comes forward with estimates, which puts forward a budget and then comes out and says: "Well, even though we've gone that, we know it's absurd; we know that there are going to have to be radical changes. So the squeaky-wheel theory can operate; send over someone who can persuade us, whether it be someone who we have a special relationship with or a person who's a hired gun."

It seems a crazy way to finance education, that school boards must come and make special requests rather than having their needs met in the normal fashion by a budget for the Department of Education.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to — say a few words about the Bremer matter. I was just intrigued last night to hear a brand new reason for the firing of Mr. Bremer, namely he didn't produce any paper. I was surprised by that because on my desk at the time I had a document entitled "Edge: On Educational Change, an Occasional Paper, No. 1" — put out by the 1973 National Association of Elementary School Principals. It's an American document; they decided to have Bremer write an article for them, which he did. It went on to 32 pages, and they have some interesting things to say. I'd like to quote one or two words from the beginning of it. This is from John Bremer, Victoria, British Columbia:

"The following pages are not the outcome of lofty and isolated contemplation. They are the results of sometimes desperate attempts to think through precisely what can be done by an active and practical educational reformer as conscious of his own limitations as those of the school and university structures and personnel. "To survive in educational and political change, it is necessary to have what might be thought of the desirable directions and the paths available."

Here is a document, printed in December or at least it came out in December, "On Educational Change." I'm no educationalist; I'm not a professional in the field; I won't try and go through it. But to suggest that Bremer is not writing things on education is just, I think, foolish. Perhaps he wasn't asked for the type of thing the Minister mentioned last night, I don't know. She's going to have to answer that question as well.

The fact is: he has been writing things in the period in question. These writings are of interest to professional educators, and he has, indeed, been, I think, doing plenty in the writing field.

I'd like to mention to you, Mr. Chairman, it may have slipped your mind, that Mr. Bremer is co-author of the book The School Without Walls and, with his wife, the co-author of Open Education — A Beginning. He's contributed articles to professional and popular journals. He's putting out three further books called A Matrix for Modern Education, Open Essays in Education, and one that I think we should all read with great interest when it comes out, Education and Politics. The man is a writer. He is a man quite capable of putting forward ideas, and he's done so frequently. In the notes of the editor, he's described as being a man who is involved in educational change; he's put forward here as a person who will be bearing heavily on the directions these changes are likely to take. It says, of course, that he's looking for a process, not a product.

That apparently has been the rejection by the Minister. She's looking for a product, and failed to realize that a process perhaps was what the commissioner himself was looking for.

I'd like to mention, Mr. Chairman, for your edification, that when Bremer was fired by the Premier, the Minister made this statement: "So, his terms of reference were somewhat intangible, and I suppose there was adverse public reaction to the fact that he was not there to espouse policy. So, when you ask, am I satisfied? I think the terms of reference that I gave him were just to go out and listen."

That was a statement by the Minister when Bremer was fired by the Premier, and yet last night the excuse given was that he didn't produce enough paper; he didn't give guidelines. That is a totally different reason for firing, which has been raised last night, and we think that this should be elaborated on at some length. That came from January 12, 1974, a Sun article headlined: "Dailly Comes to Defence of Embattled School Czar."

Mr. Chairman, I raise that and I refer to it at this time because it's tremendously important: this man's reputation has been impaired; his ability to earn his living has been impaired. The Minister, when he was fired, gave one set of reasons. She did not mention

[ Page 1497 ]

the fact that she hadn't received any documents from him. That was not the reason given when he was fired; that was the reason concocted months later. When he was fired on January 12, she said,"I think the terms of reference that I gave him were just to go out and listen."

I hope she'll explain why she's had to rewrite history in her statements last night, because I think it's highly unfair.

We then come to the document referred to yesterday a number of times — the White Paper. Mr. Chairman, I had to ask the day after this was tabled in the House whether it was the White Paper because I couldn't believe my ears that after 18 months with the Minister, we got a document such as that — five pages, small pages, which collect a number of truisms out of what I am assured would be an ordinary text on educational philosophy which students of education would have to read.

These statements are so strikingly obvious that you wonder whether the previous government, or successor government, any government, would object.

"We believe that a major responsibility of the school system is to provide a measure of success for every student. The fact that it fails to do this in some instances calls for an examination of the whole structure within which the student is expected to learn."

Well, for heaven's sake, isn't that a bright new bit of rethink?

That, Mr. Chairman, is something Mr. Brothers, the former Minister, undoubtedly agreed with. It's something that every student in the faculty of education at UBC, or in Victoria or elsewhere, undoubtedly agrees with. It's simply a truism. It's not any suggestion for change or any hard analysis of policy options.

"The student has no means of resolving any conflict with the system; he must conform, leave voluntarily, or be suspended."

Well, has there been any change? Has she suggested any way of improving this? Are we dealing with a White Paper which gives us options for the student who otherwise, would leave voluntarily or be suspended? Is there any indication there as to what her thinking is? None at all. John Bremer, he gave ideas. He got out and talked about these things. He was a catalyst that encouraged debate and made people think about these issues. He didn't simply enunciate platitudes and then pretend it was a White Paper.

"Even the best efforts of the present system are not effectively meeting the educational needs of these students."

The Minister knew that before she took office. She knows it now 18 months later, and yet there's not a word in this as to how to solve the problem raised.

Under the title, "The Major Criteria of an Effective System," the script has:

"In order to do this the system must be equitable in the provision of educational opportunity, and must be responsive to the needs of the individual and the community."

Well, I would hope so. Is that a startling statement that you can really discuss? Is that the type of statement which causes people to challenge it and to come out with new ideas or to analyse new approaches? Not on your life; it's another platitude. Under the heading "What Must be Changed":

"The structure of the education system should be redesigned in such a way that authority and responsibility are distributed more appropriately, keeping in mind the principle that the primary relationship in education is between the teacher, the pupil and the parent, and that other parts of the system must be in support of that relationship."

Well, where is the suggestion for more appropriate distribution? Where are the areas we can discuss? Or people who come to meetings or go to PTA meetings and discuss their children's problems with their teachers, or the students themselves — where are the proposals in this White Paper from the Minister that they can sink their teeth into? They aren't there.

Now Bremer was offering suggestions. Many people were very critical of his suggestions. But in terms of the commission he was given by the Minister to cause people to think, to cause them to go out and start analyzing concepts and new ideas, Bremer was doing that job. I may not have liked everything he proposed, but he was acting as the devil's advocate. He had a certain Irish pixiness to him; he was out there trying to encourage debate and needle people. And he was doing it.

But this type of statement doesn't encourage debate. It doesn't encourage people to come out and say,"By golly, that's a rotten idea. You know what I think is this." This type of platitude does nothing of the sort.

Page 3:

"A system of programme development and decision-making should be developed which allows for flexibility in programme design."

I've gone through debates in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, right back to the days of the father of the present Attorney-General. And every time you get onto education, that type of statement comes up. But what we're hoping for is some sort of policy proposals, White Paper policy proposals, to which the Minister may not be herself dedicated, but which would indicate where the areas are where we could make changes. What are the changes that we could have for flexibility and  programming? How can we make decision-making more responsive?

A lot of talk was made yesterday about decision-making from the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), and yet there are no indications here as to

[ Page 1498 ]

what type of changes are in the mind of the Minister or no suggestion as to how the debate could go.

"Programmes to meet learning difficulties, including those caused by background, socio-economic circumstance, learning-ability levels, or home environment should be developed through the co-operative efforts of many departments of government."

Well, bully for her. But it's nothing new. Mr. Brothers agreed there, I'm sure.

"The professional staff of schools should have appropriate pre-service and in-service training to enable them to offer alternative programmes in alternative ways."

Once again, that's probably the heading of one of those chapters in the textbook on education which the young student teachers are using. Sure it's a statement, but where is the discussion of it? Where are the proposals to achieve that end?

Then we get to "Right to Education. The opportunity for suitable education should be provided to all children." Well and good; that's great. That's something that's really going to spark a lot of debate. There are going to be hundreds of people, thousands of people in this province, Mr. Chairman, getting up and saying,"Oh, no, no, no, we shouldn't provide suitable education for all children in the province." You'd be surprised. Oh, there's going to be just dozens of them. That's a really inflammatory statement that's going to encourage lots of debate. You bet your boots.

"The Department of Education will work with other government departments to develop effective legislation and programmes in this area." Well, great, but then it should always have been doing that. The idea that the department is working in isolation and has no contact with other departments is ridiculous. It's ridiculous under any government of any political stripe, ranging right through from fascist to communist. It's absurd to suggest that the Department of Education in any government would work in isolation. This statement really means nothing and there's no suggestion as to how we can spark that debate and get on to that.

"Organization and Administration. Administrative organization should be revised to parallel the new structure of authority and responsibility." What new structure? Where? Where are the proposals for the new structure? We just don't have them, so again it's an airy-fairy sentence which comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere. It's not something that can spark the type of debate in education we had hoped and expected when Bremer was appointed.

Then finally on finance. "An equitable education finance system should be developed." Does anybody believe we should have an inequitable system for educational finance? Are the Social Credit Members, the Tory Members, the NDP back bench, ourselves getting up and saying,"We want an inequitable system of educational finance"? Mr. Chairman, this is just a platitude and nonsense.

Finally in the "Summary" we get to a statement which worries me even more. "The Minister of Education will provide the leadership for public discussion of the issues outlined in this paper." She's had 18 months, she's produced a paper. Leadership and discussion? We've had none of it, absolutely none of it. How can the discussion take place when we're not getting that type of leadership?

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education should not be in the role of sparking discussion of this nature; it should be someone outside the educational system, like Bremer, willing to take the lumps when people don't like the proposals he makes, willing to take the lumps when people misinterpret some of his devil's advocacy for his own views. That's the type of person we need. A Minister politically responsible? Oh, it's absurd to suggest she can do this in that way. It really doesn't make sense at all. I just don't understand it at all.

I'd like to quote once more from a statement made by the Minister when she was in opposition. She was complaining about a piece of legislation and she said, "The essence of the bill was to change the Minister's role from one of a political figure to one of a professional educator." She added, "We consider this highly dangerous for the educational procedures of this province." Yet, despite that statement of principle, she apparently would like to be involved as the chief spark plug in debate. She has produced nothing that could spark debate at all so far.

It's not only that she herself doesn't seem to have the ideas that can spark debate, but she in her position as Minister of Education should not be the person to spark ideas of that nature. It has got to be somebody else. You've got to have a lightning rod such as Bremer or such as some other commissioner, someone who can get out there and plug away and raise issues and raise unpopular issues. Sure, we can try in the Legislature to do that, but we're not professionals. Very few of us are professional teachers. The fact of the matter is that it should be done by someone who is a proper expert.

I asked yesterday during the question period whether this was the vaunted White Paper on education, something which has cost probably around $200,000 one way or another. I was told it is.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your estimates. You start adding those in. You have done nothing else in your time in office, and this is the only product from the Minister in all those months. You start adding up the cost of her office and you realize that it might be 100 bucks a word for those truisms. It really is infuriating.

[ Page 1499 ]

I would suggest instead for all Members of the House here not only to start reading Bremer's works, because they're good, not only to read EDGE, "On Educational Change" but read "The Purposes of Education; Results of a CEA Study." Canadian Educational Association. Read that. You'll find it's a much more lengthy document; it runs to 45 pages instead of 5. It deals with surveys of what people think education should be; it has gone out and tried to do some examination of what people would like. It's a great book.

I'll give you some more references, Mr. Chairman, you're interested in this type of thing: "1973, Price: $2.50. Canadian Educational Association, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5F IV5." It's by Joseph Lauwerys, Director, Atlantic Institute of Education. "The Purposes of Education; Results of a CEA Study."

That gives some sort of meat for you, Mr. Chairman, and myself, both of us laymen in the educational field. It gives far more in the way of an insight as to what way the debate should go, and how we can perhaps bring in new ideas and how the system can be improved. They deal with public attitudes.

For instance, you and I, Mr. Chairman, may well feel the public believes that education for a job is the most important thing. Yet you start looking at this survey and you realize the public does not believe that. I'll give you question No. 5: "People have different reasons why they believe children should get an education. Which of the following would be your reason? 1. to get better jobs. 2. to get along better with people at all levels of society. 3. to attain self-satisfaction. 4. to stimulate the mind." "No answer," of course, is another one. "To stimulate the mind. To attain self-satisfaction. To get along better with people at all levels of society" are all considered to be more important than "to get better jobs." Interesting: I would have thought it would be the other way around. I just didn't know that.

The fact that so many people put down "to attain self-satisfaction" I thought was very indicative of the fact that they understand that education is to make the person a fuller human being and not simply to give them a trade. It was a very revealing question, and there are plenty more in there. I won't go through the whole thing.

What we have in this is a collection of truisms; what we have in this document is some sort of analysis and examination of the problem, some attempt to raise issues and some attempt to get public input.

I'd like to make one quote from it because it ties in completely with what I said about independent schools.

"In a brilliant paper prepared for the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Dr. Guy Rocher of Montreal puts forward a point of view similar to the above.

"'All, or about all, young people are convinced that the gravest threat hanging over them is that of being absorbed by the infernal machine of collectivity, of being dehumanized, alienated, and depersonalized by an anonymous and soulless system. It is in the context of this obsessive fear and as a means of reacting against this threat — whether it be real or imaginary is of little importance here — that we find the desire which is so strongly expressed to see the school and the school system return to a personalized thought, creativity and autonomy, and to fight against the excessively strong forces of society.... It is not by chance that in a mass society in which the individual is subjected to a considerable number of pressures and constraints which tend towards standardization of people, the demand rises for an education that is more and more individualized....'"

Well, there is the argument in a nutshell for having in our school system and assisting the independent or religious school. There also is an argument in a nutshell for British Columbia, which is becoming under a socialist government, more and more all-embracing, more and more large and all-powerful, for our educational system to cater to this need for the individual and a personalization of education.

That quote from Guy Rocher is well worth reading, Mr. Chairman, and I'll send you a copy of this because I know that you are interested in this subject.

We're in this weird situation of analyzing the government's legislation. We've had people come forward, pointing out how important it is to have the type of discussion that Bremer was trying to spearhead, and doing a good job. We questioned it when he was first appointed. We were the ones who questioned and said, "Why did you bring a person from the outside? Shouldn't you have a person from British Columbia?" And we were accused of being anti-education. Indeed, "disgusting," because we even asked the Minister about the qualifications of the man and his connection with British Columbia.

We suggested other names that should have been considered as well. We wanted to know why he had been chosen over other British Columbians, and we were roundly denounced by the Minister, who gave my colleague for VancouverPoint Grey a verbal tongue-lashing. But once the man took the job, once he started doing this — we're quite willing to admit that maybe some other person could have done it too, and maybe some other person could have done it better.... But he was trying to do the job, and he was doing a job.

It just doesn't make any sense for him to have

[ Page 1500 ]

been fired as he was, because the job is still not done. We have no suggestions as to how education is going to go. We're going to throw the whole thing back in the department, that institution that hopefully we were trying to get away from, that bureaucracy that we were apparently going to get away from.

We're going to have these structured committees deep in the bureaucracy, and there is going to be no real opportunity, that there might have been through Bremer or through the commission concept, to have a public debate on the role of education.

You know, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that when some of the people, the hidebound bureaucrats in the Department of Education, started to realize how effective the Bremer commission was becoming, how interested people were in discussing the objectives of education.... You know, you only go round this world once. Well, you're a clergyman; you might suggest that we go around more often than that, Mr. Chairman. Nevertheless, most of us believe we only go around once; and if you start off with a bad backing, a bad education, you never catch up. You can't do it. I've said that before in this House, and it's tremendously important.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): That's not true.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it's tremendously important for people to have this type of opportunity to get the very best for their kids.

So, when Bremer was fired — and I want a proper explanation from the Minister as to the conflicting statements about his firing when he was fired, in her statements last night, because they are totally contradictory — when Bremer was fired others came up trying to fill the gap. "Citizens Hope to Fill Bremer Void" — January 30, 1974.

"A group of 23 persons wants to found a citizens' educational commission in the wake of the firing of provincial commissioner John Bremer. They want a province-wide organization to ensure that changes in education are in touch with community wishes."

Then, of course, we had the people themselves who worked with Bremer; Stanley Burke was one of them, and he tried to get something going. In fact he tried to have the Premier re-examine the whole question of the firing. I asked a question in the House back on February 21; that's more than a month ago. "Reinstatement of John Bremer" is the heading. I'm quoting from Hansard, page 410, February 21, 1974.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Premier whether he has discussed with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) the representations which have been made by the general advisory board of the Commission on Education, who urged him to reinstate Mr. John Bremer.

By the way, that letter dates from 1973 that I was referring to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've received the letter but we've not had a detailed discussion on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister, as his letter indicating that he was discussing the contents of the letter with Mrs. Dailly was signed on February 13, when in the future he expects to have such a conversation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, since I do make a practice of acknowledging all my letters and then following through on them, I am aware that I have answered that and I hope to meet with the Minister shortly to discuss that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Premier answers his correspondence. Could he indicate what "shortly" means?

And the Speaker cut me off, as naturally he would.

But here is a letter, here is a reply, that the Premier is so proud of. He answers his correspondence. This is to Mrs. Lee Brown, 3480 Upper Terrace, Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mrs. Brown.

This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter of January 31. I am discussing its contents with Mrs. Dailly."

February 13 — and it is now March 22. Now have these discussions taken place?

There's another question: are we going to have Bremer reappointed or does the government want to ignore and refuse to answer the question because they don't want to touch the subject?

I have the letter here. There's a news clipping of it, February 16, signed by Lee Brown, Irene Foulkes, Eileen Herridge — this name I'm not too sure of, Marg Laker, I think it is, at the bottom of the page — Stanley Burke, Robert Racey and Larry Hillman. They are members of the general advisory board to the commission on education. They are expressing their deep concern.

We asked questions in the House as to whether this deep concern is being taken seriously by the Premier, and he says he answers his correspondence — with two lines stating he has received the letter. We've had no indication of any conversations following these representations between the Premier and the Minister.

So, Mr. Chairman, there's another question. I'd like to know why the advice of the people in the field, the people on that commission, the people who understood what was going on, was ignored. Was it simply bureaucracy? Was it the Minister's unhappiness with the fact that Bremer was getting a lot of ink and he was out there as the real Minister of Education in the people's minds? Was that factor

[ Page 1501 ]

involved? We'd like to know some of the answers to this. She gave one answer, one excuse, when he was fired, and she gave a very different one last night.
We'd like to have an accounting of the discrepancy.

She said that "Mr. Bremer was not producing for me the necessary evaluation of our system and recommendations for changes I had hoped for."

That's a quote from her press release of January 12. Something else was given last night when she was contacted and asked by phone for her views, and that's, of course, the headline which said, "Dailly to Defence of Education Minister."

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the government fully appreciates the difficulties that they are creating in the educational field. I don't think the Minister understands the difficulties that she is causing for people who are professional educators in the Province of British Columbia.

I don't think the government understands that in their defence of the flippant remarks of our Premier on a television programme, their attempt to follow through with what were obviously ill-considered, off-hand remarks, they have severely damaged education in the Province of British Columbia.

I would like to read a letter; it is dated February 19, 1974, from Surrey:

"Dear Mr. Anderson:

I have been an ardent supporter of the New Democratic Party since its inception. Before that I supported the CCF. You can therefore imagine my delight when we won the last provincial election. Since that electoral victory I have become increasingly disturbed by what is happening. As a teacher I am particularly concerned by what is happening in education.

"It appears to me that the Minister of Education is doing exactly what the previous administration did, but at a much accelerated pace. She appears to have little knowledge or understanding of the problems confronting those involved in the educational process, both students and teachers.

"I teach in Surrey, and I am deeply I disturbed at the budget cut being imposed upon us. The result of this cut means that the standard of education will decline rapidly. The students will suffer, and they have no voice in what the people's government is doing to their future. Would you please give the enclosed NDP membership card to whomever you choose in that party?"

Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel this gentleman has made I clear that it is education which worries him the most, and the Minister's failure in education which has caused this gentleman, who supported the CCF, supported the NDP, worked hard for them, to send me his NDP membership card.

I would like at this time to ask the page to take this across to the Minister, because he's asked me — "Would you please give the enclosed NDP membership card to whomever you choose in that party?" — and I think nobody is more appropriate to receive it than the Minister of Education, who is destroying the faith of her own party membership in the ability of this government to handle this important portfolio.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): That's not true. That's just not true.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): One of the areas which the NDP in their election campaign stated they were extremely interested in was the area of classroom size.

Since their election and since this Minister has been appointed to the portfolio, we've had repeated statements to the same: their primary concern is classroom size.

My question to the Minister this morning is: what is the plan of attack to reduce classroom size? She has set a goal for herself and she says that she plans to reduce the classroom size by 1.5 students each year for the next three years, for a total of 4.5 reduction, and an eventual goal of 17 students per teacher.

In the first place, I wish we could get past the place of referring to a classroom size by a fictitious figure of student-to-teacher ratio. I don't believe that it's basically honest, Mr. Chairman, to say that our classroom sizes are 21.5 students per teacher. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this takes into consideration all the teachers who are being paid as teachers or who are full-time equivalents, and it doesn't really reflect the actual class size.

I said it the other day and I think it bears repeating: I wish the Minister would begin to look at class sizes the way they actually are.

I think that we need to take the number of classes and divide that number into the total number of students, and that will give us the true picture of classroom size. When you do it that way, it doesn't look good at all. As a matter of fact, if we divide them as the B.C. Teachers' Federation has done — into categories of 1 to 15; 16 to 25; 26 to 30; 31 to 35; and 36 and over, and you call these small, high, medium, poor and pathetic — you find out that in British Columbia 43.8 per cent of the classrooms fit into the "poor" and the "pathetic" category.

Members of the House might be interested, by school districts, which are the most serious offenders. In Williams Lake, where the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is the representative, 79 per cent of the classrooms are 31 pupils or larger — 79 per cent. How about West Vancouver — just to give you a comparative figure in the rural and in the urban area? In West Vancouver 65.6 of the classrooms are 31 students or larger. What about Langley? The Hon.

[ Page 1502 ]

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) will be interested in this. In Langley 60 per cent — actually 59.9-something per cent - of the classrooms are in the "poor" to "pathetic" rating when it comes to class size.

Now I want to give the Minister an opportunity to explain to the House what the plan of attack is going to be in actually reducing these class sizes. Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, may I ask whether or not we are going to reduce the class sizes first in those school districts where we have the largest classes?

Are we going to try to reduce the class sizes in the most offending areas first, or are we going to come up with a general philosophy and a general plan of attack that would just try to reduce the class size overall in the province? I would like to suggest that we go to the areas most offending first. I would like to say that we go to Kamloops and central Okanagan. In central Okanagan, 69.9 per cent of the classrooms are larger than 31 students per class. Langley...I just gave you the figures for Langley a moment ago. You would like them to operate there first, wouldn't you? I don't blame you a bit. You are a good representative. I understand that one-third of the total student growth for the province occurred in the Langley area.

The total amount of grants to school boards was increased in this last year by $29.5 million. This does not account for the special grants that the boards may have if they come begging to the Minister. These are the hard grants that have already been given — $29.5 million in the next year's budget.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

However, just the cost of meeting the increased teachers' salaries totals $30.5 million, which means that before we have taken any steps toward the reduction of class size, we are already $1 million in the hole. I would like the Minister to tell the House how she plans to attack this problem of class size and then how she plans to finance this plan of attack. In 43.8 per cent of the classes in British Columbia there are 31 students or more.

I understand that there is a problem. For instance, if you go to a very small school district where the schools may be one and two and three classrooms, to reduce the class size in that instance is difficult, because to introduce one extra teacher into that particular school may mean it reduces the class size to 25 or even smaller. There are a few classrooms that are in the one student to 15 students ratio.

Just by comparison, the independent schools — and I am sure the Minister would be interested in their class size, their student-teacher ratio — the average in the independent schools is 16.5. I would have to agree that the teaching atmosphere must be far better in the independent schools than it is in the public school sector.

If you wanted to meet the ideal, I think that the ideal student-to-teacher ratio is 12 to 1. That indication was given to us by the greatest teacher of all when he selected 12 students. He became the instructor. I have to believe that that would be the ideal situation. The independent schools are fast approaching the ideal. They have a student-teacher ratio of 16.5 to one. In the public school sector it is 21.5 to one. We are, in the public school system, affecting five students per class that, if they were in the independent school system, would be gaining that much better an education.

I would like to say that the sooner the Minister takes action on her goal to reduce the class size to 17 the better. My question this morning is: how? If I might add the second question: when do we start?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yesterday we discussed at some length the John Bremer affair. Earlier it had been a question during the oral question period by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom): had Mr. Bremer violated the terms of his reference? That question wasn't answered.

Yesterday a number of Members, including myself, asked more detailed questions as to why Mr. John Bremer had been dismissed. In the afternoon the Minister told us that his style wasn't right. Up to that point his competency in the job that he had done had not been openly questioned except by the Premier, who said on television that he had been a bit of a flop. You know.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) presented the essence of Mr. Bremer's conclusions, having watched his appearance on television. The Minister of Education last night said to us:

The first point I want to make to the Members is that I would very much like to see that presentation because I have never seen it before.

In the nine months that Mr. Bremer was commissioner I had asked him to go out and evaluate the system and report to me on an interim basis. I did not ask him for a big, long formal royal commission report, but I certainly did expect some interim recommendations, as I am sure you, Mr. Member, if you were the Minister, would wish to see something concrete coming forward.

The Minister left the impression that Mr. Bremer had neither produced anything concrete nor even given her informal recommendations as to what should be done in the nine months he was in office. She was applauded by the backbenchers, who I'm sure were relieved to discover, at least from the point of view of the Minister, that the commissioner of education had done nothing in his nine months in office.

[ Page 1503 ]

I'm not going to read all her remarks because they are quoted in Hansard. However, she concluded by saying:

I would think that in nine months, one would expect something to be produced.

The Member was referring to the White Paper as being motherhood, apple pie and so on. I would like to point out to you that the White Paper may appear very minute with just five basic issues, but it is the first time I think in the Province of British Columbia that a government or a Minister has stated: 'Here are the issues, as we see them, in this province educationally.'

Earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the Liberal leader, discussed the publication, "Edge," of the former commissioner of education, Mr. John Bremer, which came out during the nine-month period he held office.

I have in my hands the working paper on university governance in British Columbia. It's a fairly comprehensive document, complete with flow sheets of the present structure and the proposed structure for the future. The working paper presents alternative approached to university education, makes specific recommendations regarding changes in legislation and provides a blueprint of sorts for the future. These are two documents, pretty comprehensive, loaded with information which appeared during those nine months. There's another document here towards the learning community, a working paper on the community colleges in British Columbia, which is from the Department of Education, but which obviously derived from the concepts that the former commissioner of education put forward during his term of office.

These are three public documents stemming from the activities of the commissioner of education. It isn't nothing, Mr. Chairman. It's something infinitely more substantial than the piece of garbage that the Minister put on the floor earlier this week. I don't need to ask questions about the public documents that Mr. Bremer was responsible for producing.

I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister to tell us whether or not there were any other documents from Mr. Bremer that were given to her during that nine months that she hasn't told us about. She denied the existence of anything last night when she replied to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). Manifestly, these were important things, because they had been made public. She referred particularly to the lack of any performance with regard to the public school system. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister directly: was there anything more from Mr. Bremer presented to you formally or informally that we were not told about last night?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say again that it would be nice to hear some response from the Minister, sooner or later, and I hope she will.

Recalling the debate last night and listening to the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), who isn't in his place this morning, it's really fun to listen to the NDP Members speak about education and other things because they're so full of words like "innovation" and "input" and "survey" and "change" and "task force" and "thrust" and "positive approaches" and " purposes," but never once do they ever say anything about action — all the fancy words that they're so full of, but never any action.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has put it very clearly that this Minister of Education in 18 months has been a total and abject failure — 18 months of nothing. There's been not one single piece of meaningful legislation in 18 months in office by this Minister of Education. All we get in 18 months is this fantastic little booklet. Even the Member for Dewdney called it a little statement, and that's about what it is. All this little booklet does is tell us all kinds of things that everybody in British Columbia has known for years and years. The wonder is that it took so long to get, when it could have been written in half an hour.

It's like all those words that I mentioned before — the "innovations" and the "input" and the "surveys" and the "thrust" and the "task force." It's public relationsese. Either this little booklet was written by a public relations officer or it was an exercise by one of the Minister's grade 5 classrooms, because there's certainly nothing new in it, and there's certainly nothing very startling in it and there's certainly nothing very intelligent in it. Public relations jazz is all it is.

The Minister has made some mention and the Member for Dewdney made some mention about community colleges and all the action that the Minister has taken. Yet we see that the community college in the central Fraser Valley is now 18 months or perhaps even a couple of years behind schedule because of the Minister's petulant actions when she first took office. The school could have been in operation today if the Minister hadn't had some knee-jerk reaction to the former government. All of the time and money that was spent in Langley District, taking questionnaires out to the people at the request of the Minister, was time and money spent for nothing.

Mr. Chairman, it's not much wonder that the British Columbia School Trustees Association has lost confidence in this Minister, because she hasn't backed up any of her actions with any kind of positive programmes. What we want in British Columbia is some kind of programmes. When she finds herself in the bind of not knowing what to do, what does she do? She tries to place the blame on the school boards.

[ Page 1504 ]

In the fall of 1972, when the opposition warned that school costs were going to go out of sight and out of control, the Minister said: "Don't worry about it." But as soon as those school costs started to go out of control, she made a public statement about the irresponsible school boards. Never once has she taken the blame and put it where it belongs — on herself. Instead she tries to pass the blame on to the school boards.

Even the British Columbia Teachers' Federation recognizes that little play, and it's a little play that's becoming prevalent with this government. Whenever they get in trouble, blame somebody else. The Premier, Mr. Chairman, blames the municipality when taxes go up because of his actions, and the Minister of Education blames the school boards. Even the British Columbia Teachers' Federation in their latest newsletter — I'll read you just a brief quote. They're talking about Surrey teachers who had to resort to a protest march on the Legislative Buildings to express their displeasure, but anyway they say:

"Education Minister Eileen Dailly and Provincial Secretary Ernest Hall met the teachers' executive and later the entire group at the legislative buildings, but Dailly tried to throw much of the blame onto the school board."

Why do you want to pass the buck all the time? Take the blame and put it where it belongs — right on the Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the Premier.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Don't try and pass the buck, Mr. Chairman, onto the school boards and blame them for being irresponsible. All they're trying to do is their job.

The other night, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) pointed out that the school teachers are pretty frustrated. They had a dinner here in Victoria the other evening and mentioned that they're pretty happy, the Minister's done pretty well everything the teachers wanted. I mentioned when I spoke on the budget debate that the Minister seemed to be falling over himself to make sure that things were good for teachers. But that's got nothing to do with being good for education, and being good for students. Even the teachers the other evening, the Teachers' Federation executive, told us that sure, they've got everything they want. But this Minister hasn't done anything to make it better for students. And that's what counts, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Would the Member continue his speech?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just waiting for....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may continue.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's been mentioned that we're expecting some direction from this government in relation to independent schools. Now the Premier, once again, Mr. Chairman, has said that he's in favour of support for independent schools, but his party doesn't like the idea. Yet on other occasions, he's reversed himself and said: "You know, the party's in favour of it but I don't like it."

But I think it's time, Mr. Chairman, that this government came forward with a statement offering financial support and legal recognition for independent schools. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) agrees with that because he's told his papers in his community that he thinks he can convince his party and his government that it's time for financial support for independent schools. That's right, Mr. Member for Kamloops, isn't it?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Yes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that's right, Mr. Chairman.

But it's time, Mr. Chairman, that this government came up with a policy statement on independent schools, and you know the present system won't fall apart. I'm sure it won't fall apart just because a choice is made available. If the present system did fall apart, then it's in a very sorry state if it can't stand that kind of competition.

So, Madam Minister, I think all of us in this House, including the Members of your side of the fence who believe in support for independent schools, believe that it's time that you came out with a very positive and definite statement on your stand as education Minister in relation to support for independent schools.

There's all kinds of evidence, Mr. Chairman, of the failure of this Minister in providing the kind of thrust — if I can use that word — in new education, programmes, all kinds of indications of failure. The provincial budget is up 26 per cent, and the Premier bragged about his fantastic new budget based on a fantastic and growing new economy. Up 26.4 per cent. You know how much more public schools got? They got 10.7 per cent. What kind of growth is that?

During the eight-year period from '65 to '73, public school expenditures as a proportion of the provincial budget did go down slightly from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. But what has happened in two years under the NDP? Now they're down to 16 per cent of the total budget compared to 21 per cent a

[ Page 1505 ]

few years ago.

That's a pretty sorry record from a government who was elected largely because of their policies for education, and they've proved in 18 months to be a total failure.

I'd like to speak for a moment about one of the communities which is located in my constituency, the school district of Surrey. Now when this Minister took office, she promised us all kinds of wonderful new ideas for education. One of those wonderful new ideas was the concept of five-year budgeting. She said, and rightfully so, that school districts couldn't operate any longer on the kind of year-to-year budgeting that they had been operating on. So she said, let's project it over five years so that we can do some kind of meaningful planning. We all welcomed that step. So did the school district of Surrey.

So the school district of Surrey went and put together all kinds of research people, sat down and did a very serious study about the needs of the Surrey school district for the next five years. And they thought that was fine. But you know what it's turned out to be? Nothing but a farce. Nothing but a farce. Totally phony.

It proves only one thing, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister doesn't have any idea about what is happening in the school districts in the province. She has no policy and she has no direction.

She seems to be waiting for her many assistants to take some kind of initiative, to come up with ideas. But even her assistants don't have any ideas or any new directions for change in the education system. What we're getting is a non-education policy, perhaps with the idea that if you don't do anything, you can't get into any trouble. Well, I can tell you that this Minister sure won't get into any trouble because she hasn't done a thing in 18 months.

You know that this wonderful new five-year budget that Surrey so carefully prepared came to about $40 million for construction and site acquisition. You know what this Minister did, Mr. Chairman? She slashed that $40 million to $11 million. That's a pretty good cut, from $40 million to $11 million. What does that do to Surrey's five-year programme? It's a farce and phony. Totally phony. The Minister never really meant it when she said go out and budget for five years, because the first time that anybody does it, she cuts their programme all to pieces.

She says that she's doing it because of a dispute over population figures. She's basing her educational budgeting on the pill. She doesn't even understand that while the birth rate is going down, the influx into very attractive areas like Langley and Surrey will not stop because the immigration is going to continue, partially because of your land policies, because there's no place else to go but those areas which have some land left.

I'd just like to read a letter from a teacher and a parent and a taxpayer, all the same person, who is a school teacher in Surrey. He says that in all of those categories — teacher, parent, taxpayer — he is very dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. He says:

"As a parent, I see my two children attending an elementary school which at 600 students is already too big and which is destined to become bigger and more over-crowded because the powers-that-be in Victoria," and listen to this, Mr. Premier, "have magically decreed sterility for our residents so that the school population will decline."

That's an education policy on the birth control formula, I guess it's called.

"As a taxpayer," this writer goes on to say,"I see a terrific budget in Surrey to pay for our present inadequate educational services. Our residential mill rate is already extremely high because we have no industrial base to cushion the cost. It can realistically go no higher, so we are stuck with our stagnant if not deteriorating situation in education."

He says: "As a teacher, I am depressed and demoralized to find that I shall probably be unable to look forward to any improvement in my working conditions and in the learning conditions for my students. I find it ludicrous that our little boss, our supposedly autonomous school board, must go cap in hand to our big boss to beg for crumbs from this tin-cup government so that we might be able to get some equipment and supplies to equip our classrooms.

"Examples of such oppressive big-brotherism are becoming more and more frequent and correspondingly more repressive, and unfortunately big-brother is becoming a stingy 'censored bleep-bleep,' when it comes to backing up its fine philosophy with filthy lucre."

He says finally: "As a long-time NDP supporter, and not incidentally voter, I am disenchanted politically, for although I am pleased with much that is being done in Victoria now, I bitterly resent the present discrepancy between ideology and practice with regards to education. And on this one issue, the issue which was primarily responsible for the NDP's ascension to power, I am resentful enough to seriously consider a switch in political allegiance next time around."

There is a teacher who understands the situation and who knows very well that the school district of Surrey is being short-changed by this education Minister.

In the matter of the college up in the central Fraser Valley, in the matter of the tremendous

[ Page 1506 ]

growth rate in the School District of Langley, and the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) pointed that out briefly that one-third, and I want this government to know very well, that one-third of the total pupil increase in the Province of British Columbia took place in Langley School District — one-third.

There was a student increase of 2,583 in British Columbia in 1972-73 according to the Minister's own figures. Langley's increase in that same period was 919 — more than one-third. It represents 35.5 per cent of the provincial increase in one school district, and I'm telling you, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that you'd better wake up to the fact that high-growth areas require some special kind of attention from the Department of Education.

Langley and Surrey and Abbotsford are those kind of high-growth areas, and they're not getting the kind of attention that they deserve from this department.

Your department hasn't got a clue to what is happening in the Fraser Valley and that became very evident with your petulant canceling of the college up in the upper valley. As I mentioned earlier, now there's perhaps a four-year delay in getting students into some kind of community college in that part of the province, just because the Minister has once again a knee-jerk reaction, and obviously some bad advice from her officials. From her advisers, I should put it that way — political advisers, that's right.

I want the Minister to know very clearly that in those high-growth areas we're taking the brunt of the growth in this province right now. We've all kinds of problems with housing, and with education for sure. The brunt of this growth means more kids and it doesn't matter what the birth rate is, because the migration rate is increasing at a tremendous incidence, and if you're going to have more kids you've got to have more schools, and it's as simple as that.

I'd like to know whether or not this slash in Surrey's five-year budget is the start of cut-backs in all of the high-growth areas. Is that just the start, or are you picking on Surrey because of some special reason? Is Langley next, Abbotsford, Delta, Maple Ridge? Which district is going to feel the slash next? That's the question we want to ask.

Many of the teachers in British Columbia, as I have indicated in the letter that I read, or parts of the letter that I read a few moments ago, feel — I suppose with a lot of justification — that they were almost directly responsible for your election, the NDP's election, in 1972.

I think they are justified in feeling that way. Why then would this government and particularly this Minister want to give those teachers the back of her hand, slap them in the face by developing no policies and coming up with no ideas and giving them no direction, and giving us not one piece of meaningful legislation in 18 months?

You made a promise through you, Mr. Chairman, to those teachers. You made a promise to the students in this province, you made a promise to the parents and all we can conclude since you didn't keep your promise is that the word of this government isn't worth a plugged nickel.

You know I'd just like to go back for just a moment, Mr. Chairman, to this so-called White Paper, and you just can't help being disappointed in it. I heard a rumour around that there was another sort of a paper prepared by one of the Minister's special advisers, one Marguerita Reid.

We'd like you to tell us, through you, Mr. Chairman, who Marguerita Reid is, who seems to be some kind of special adviser? How much salary does she get? Where is she in the budget and what about the paper that she'd prepared for your committee that met with the school trustees, which dealt with such things as provincial bargaining, and the structure of school districts and school boards?

Maybe that's a better paper than this one, because this one isn't much. Maybe you should table the one that Ms. Reid prepared for you, because it would obviously be better reading than this one.

What happened, Mr. Chairman, what happened to any recommendations that might have come out of that Minister's committee? I think it was called "The Minister's Committee on Changes in the Public Schools Act." Is that correct? I believe that's what it was called. Where are the recommendations from that committee? Maybe they should be put into a White Paper.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: The report was so bad, it defeats its purpose.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well maybe that's right. Maybe the report was so bad. I know they met for only five days and all went home.

AN HON. MEMBER: They couldn't work on the basis of that report.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well maybe, is that right? So maybe the Minister should tell us, is that right? Was the report so bad that the committee had to dissolve itself and go home in frustration?

Is that right? Because if that's right what's the point in bringing school trustees together? You know, I suggested in the budget debate that maybe what the Minister's trying to do is to develop bad policies or no policies and then bring the school trustees over and meet with them for five days and then she can go out to all those people in Peace River and Coquitlam and

[ Page 1507 ]

tell them: "Well, we discussed it with the school trustees and they agree." But they don't agree. They went home in frustration.

Why don't you tell us what happened in that meeting, Madam Minister? Doesn't it bother the Minister, Mr. Chairman, that the trustees, for the first time, in my memory, have come you? That's a pretty harsh indictment.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm going to go crazy.

MR. McCLELLAND: And you know what the trustees said, and I think this should be put on the record. They said: "In view of the Minister's decision not to act on the salary bargaining issue, along with her other statements and actions, the trustees of this province have lost confidence in the Minister of Education."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: They made that public statement. Doesn't that make you wonder whether or not your policies are suspect?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Or your lack of policies are suspect?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know that at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: You know what else they said? They said:

"When we consider some of the massive programmes which have been instituted by other Ministers of this government — Mincome, Pharmacare, Autoplan, several key corporate acquisitions, the take-over and integration of Vancouver social services. the Energy Commission and the Foulkes report, to name just a few, we are distressed at the almost total absence of any significant legislation in the field of education."

Doesn't that make you feel bad, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? Maybe you're sitting too close to the Premier. You obviously don't have much influence on him because all these other Ministers got all kinds of money from him for new programmes, but you haven't been able to get anything from him.

What have you got against your Minister of Education, Mr. Premier? What have you got against her? Give her some of the scope to have some new programmes too. Don't clap the lid on her. Don't clap the lid on her for 18 months. Don't be so mean to your Minister of Education.

You know, there are some other changes. The Minister mentioned the other day the question that perhaps we'll go to year-round schools. Well what are you going to do there? Have you done any studies about year-round schools? Or are you just saying: "Sounds like a good idea. We'll do it"? I'd suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister go and look into some of the areas which have developed year-round schools, because they're not too happy with them.

I was in California this year and talked to some teachers in the southern California area. They don't like the concept of year-round schools, but our Minister, true to form, she picks up all these ideas that have been discredited in the States and then institutes them in British Columbia. She's going to do it again. I wonder if she has done any studying on year-round schools. I suggest she should.

There are some things that might be looked at, Mr. Chairman. I know in Alberta they are talking about moving school holidays around over the next three years. There has been a suggestion that the school holidays be moved back a week a year so that by 1975 the summer holidays will begin on May 28 and the school year will begin on August 5. So school holidays on this kind of a semester system will be June and July, instead of July and August. Maybe that's an idea that the Minister should be looking at.

You could do all kinds of things here, because this province has such great weather they could have their holidays almost any time — not like Alberta and the Cariboo where we have winter about 9 months of the year and tough sledding the rest of the time. We could do all kinds of things like that.

Why not more staggered school attendance to make better use of the buildings we have? Why not have more staggered school attendance, and better and broader use of our school buildings? I agree that over the last five or six or seven years the use of school buildings has improved immeasurably, but there is a long way to go yet, particularly in the summer months when the school buildings are almost empty. We have those great buildings which are really a temple to the god of education rather than learning. The Minister must recognize that there is a difference.

Why not school on Saturday morning? What's wrong with going to school on Saturday morning?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Legislature sits on Saturday morning.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. We have had on at least one occasion.... The only problem I see with having the Legislature sit on Saturday morning is that the Premier would have to be absent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd be out eating ham sandwiches.

[ Page 1508 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. I'll go for that if you will.

MR. McGEER: When would we have rugby practice? (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. We would have to have rugby practice on some other day but Saturday, and we would have to rearrange the flights from the harbour. That's for sure. But what's wrong with school on Saturday mornings? The Premier has made much about UBC making better use of its facilities and going to UBC on Saturdays and summer holidays. What's wrong with public school on Saturdays? They go to school on Saturdays in many parts of Europe.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know there was a deal.

Those are some of the ideas that the Minister might look into. I've a few more comments that I'd like to make later on in this debate — perhaps tomorrow morning. (Laughter.)

I just want to say in closing, Mr. Chairman, that I find it difficult to say this, but the Minister is a disappointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: She is obviously not in control; she never has been....

AN HON. MEMBER: Even the Whip is a disappointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all flops.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to repeat that since Hansard may not have got all of the import of that statement. The Minister is a disappointment. She isn't in control of her department; she never has been. Maybe, as someone else has said, the wrong guy got fired when they fired Mr. Bremer. Maybe the Minister should stand aside and let someone get on with some real education planning in this province. Maybe it's time that the Minister stepped aside for someone who can take control and can give us some directions and can establish some policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A short time ago the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) asked the Minister whether she had received documents or letters or correspondence, whatever it might be, from her commissioner of education. He referred to the statement made last night by the Minister where she said in reference to the Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace's) statement and his reference to the Bremer television programme yesterday:

The first point I want to make to the Members is that I would very much like to see that presentation because I have never seen it before. In the nine months that Mr. Bremer was commissioner I had asked him to go out and evaluate the system and report to me on an interim basis. I did not ask him for a big, long, formal royal commission report but I certainly did expect some interim recommendations and I am sure you, Mr. Member, if you were the Minister, would wish to see something concrete come forward. In the nine months, in reference to public schools, nothing was born. I have not even a piece of paper, Mr. Member, to show you that came to me from the commissioner on the public school system. Nothing.

I would like to repeat the question of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey because I would like to know whether the Minister, indeed, received nothing from Mr. Bremer during that period, and whether there were no reports of any sort to her, and no correspondence.

I think it's important to get some indication of that because we have heard statements made by the Minister when Mr. Bremer was fired by the Premier which indicated quite clearly that she was not expecting him to produce reports.

We've heard statements made at that time which indicated his job was not to keep sending in reports to her, but his job was to stir up discussion, arrange and organize debate and public participation, which apparently he was doing and doing fairly effectively.

If the grounds for dismissal have been changed from what were originally given to no paper coming forward from Mr. Bremer, I think it's incumbent upon the Minister to table whatever correspondence or documents that she received from him during that period because she has made a charge that nothing has come forward.

I might add that in the final sentence of her summary she talks about,"The study groups will be charged with the responsibility of issuing public statements so that the public at large will be kept informed as to the progress and recommendations coming from the study groups."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what Bremer did, and he got fired for it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Bremer did that and so he wound up fired. I think the reason he wound up fired was something a great deal more devious than what we have been led to believe. This is strictly a belief of mine, I can't say that I can document it, but I believe that the bureaucrats in the Department of

[ Page 1509 ]

Education hierarchy were very upset by proposals which would reduce the number of their little empires substantially. Maybe, indeed, put them out to work teaching instead of pushing paper in government offices.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's a pretty scandalous attack against people who have worked hard for years with the government.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem, Mr. Premier....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, come, come, come! Here we go. The Premier is leaping in again just as he did in the Bremer firing causing trouble for his Minister. The fact of the matter is....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All I did was comment upon the Premier's statements.

We can certainly see that we are touching a nerve, Mr. Chairman. We can certainly see that we are hitting where it hurts.

The question is whether or not Bremer was fired because of the fact that he was too successful in his job of stirring up discussion about the relevance or otherwise of the whole hierarchy of the Department of Education. I think the only way we can really get to the bottom of that is if the Minister of Education tables some of the documents that did go between her and Bremer and vice versa. The hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) mentioned that there was a working paper on universities, a working paper on colleges, a study of the proposals on teacher training, a report of the Fraser Valley community colleges and a report on continuing education. Maybe not all of these were over the signature of Mr. Bremer, but this was the type of documentation that was coming forward during that period. She singled out public schools.

I would like to know if there was anything between Bremer and herself — any references, any correspondence, any requests concerning public schools. Did she ask him for a report or recommendation on public schools? Did she ask him? Or was he perhaps concentrating on other areas? After all, he can't do everything at once and his commission did produce a number of studies which I have referred to already.

What was the situation there? Was it simply a case of the Premier making impetuous statements on television, the Minister of Education initially defending her Minister as if she did, according to the news reports and later on getting the story straight from a cabinet Minister, presumably the Premier, and thus reversing her stand.

Her stand last night was very different. Her reasons for firing Bremer were very different last night from the reasons given some months ago on January 10. I would like to know precisely what were the true reasons because you can't have two different stories floating around and call them both the reasons, because, clearly, one has to be the predominant reason and the other of less importance.

We've had nothing but a news story last night, a news story which was based on a lack of correspondence. Yet she has done nothing to table the evidence that would indicate whether or not there was no correspondence or whether there were letters and documents between the two.

I'd like her to answer the question.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Starting with last night I tried to make a note of them starting with the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), whom I thought asked some very good questions. Unfortunately, with the passage of the evening, I don't know if I'm going to be able to remember all of them. If I've missed some, Mr. Member, you can certainly pick them up in the votes.

You expressed concern about what is going to happen to the mill rate of the school district. You asked that I give some signal now as to what the situation will be. The problem is, of course, that until we get the value of the assessments we can't give that answer and until the school board's budgets are finalized. That answer should be out by April 20 when they have to levy their local mill rate. It's impossible for me until those two factors are taken into consideration to give you that answer now.

lnterjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: As you know, we're in the process. I'll move on to that now. The supplementary grants are basically to assist in the reduction of class sizes because we have made that commitment. I think this would tie in with it to some degree. You'll have to wait for the announcement of those two to get the true picture.

If I can tie it together, that follows in with what the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was bringing up when he said, "What are we doing when it comes to the supplementary grants for the reduction of the class size?" Basically this is what we're involved in at this time.

As you know, the survey that we set up with the assistance of personnel from BCSTA (British Columbia School Trustees Association) and the BCTF

[ Page 1510 ]

(British Columbia Teachers Federation) has now been completed. The budgets of every district are not fully complete; they are being thoroughly analysed. The situation in every school district varies, as it should, due to the fact that the employment of teachers and their deployment, and in fact their whole budget and how they use their funds is basically the responsibility of that board. Therefore, after reviewing the survey information with representatives of the BCSTA and the BCTF we will develop a representation — I with my official — for the Treasury Board showing the situation in every district and the potential solution for each district.

Specifically, dollars will be allocated, taking into account the following variables: (a) What the board has attempted to do on class size in 1974 in their final estimates. In other words, you were specifically saying to me: what happens to the board which did put their neck out and put it in their estimates? This is going to be taken into consideration.

(b) The class situation that the board wishes to improve by employing additional teachers. Those are the boards which wanted to do it but were concerned about the impact on the local mill rate.

(c) The mill rate impact on the local taxpayers.

When the additional funds are approved, the boards will be asked to revise their final estimates where necessary and utilize the additional funds. On May 1, the boards will set their final budgets and their local mill rate. Following that, the board can start its recruiting programme for, teachers for the ensuing September.

That is the machinery under which we are working now on the basis of the most equitable way we can see to use the supplementary funds for the reduction of class sizes. In other words, there is an attempt to treat districts equitably, even the districts, as I said before, which decided they would put their necks out and would put in their budget estimates for reduction of class sizes.

You put great emphasis on the early years and the money which should go into the early years. I've always endorsed that. I think the kindergarten expenditure is one signal of that. I'm not satisfied; I feel there are still areas in which we can put more resources in the early years. I think the reduction of the class size in those years is vital, of course.

The independent school question you and other Members of the House asked. The party policy has been stated quite clearly at the last party convention: there would be no financial aid to independent schools. I think most of you have seen the resolution, and I endorsed the party policy.

As far as textbooks, we have provided assistance and that will continue.

I'm glad to see the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) here. I thought he made a very sanctimonious speech about his own area. He was berating me as the Minister for the way in which I may be treating — he wasn't sure — his district. He was prophesying that I was not going to come through with the necessary capital funds for his area. He berated me for the terrible situation there with the increased growth and the fact that they were so terribly overcrowded. Yet that Member represents the party of the former government which obviously held up the acquisition of those school sites in the years when they should have been bought, and it held up capital construction. That's why you are partly in the mess that you're in today. To stand there sanctimoniously and berate this government for the faults of your government I think takes a considerable amount of gall.

We are not going to hold against you specifically as an MLA the fact that you represent the Social Credit Party. So I want to tell you right now, and I think you should be aware of it, that we never have any intention of allocating funds in that manner. In the Langley school district we have already approved emergency funding for school sites, Mr. Member, because we are aware of the importance of finding accommodation for the students in your area. I would appreciate it if you would have those facts first before you make these accusations with reference to capital projections and approvals.

You also made a very broad accusation that our whole five-year planning was a farce because of the one incident that has hit the press on Surrey.

First of all, I would like to point out that over half the school districts of this province have moved very carefully through the five-year projection and they have been approved by the department. It's working very well. Unfortunately, when the thing works well there's no press. Half the school boards of this province have already done very well.

Interjections.

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

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The matter of Surrey. To begin with, the department officials and the Surrey school board have not finalized those figures; the departmental officials have further meetings with that board. I find it very interesting that we have so much press on something as if it was the accomplished fact that the department had cut. The department has not cut, and they are quite aware of that. The meetings are still going on.

The interesting thing is over the matter of the enrolment figures. It was the municipality's figures which coincided very closely with the department. We feel that it's very essential for the municipality and the school board to get together. This is the

[ Page 1511 ]

information we have. We don't want to get in the battle of figures. We do know, however, that we are not coming to any agreement at this time and that's why no definite policy has been made with reference to the Surrey school board. It hit the press before the government has finally said this is it. Negotiations and talks are still going on.

We have no intention of picking out one district and slashing it, I can assure you. If it's going to be cut at all, it will only be cut in a very responsible manner after we've examined the figures. Thank you very much.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll just ask the Minister one further question. Surrey school board submitted a five-year budget which amounted to $40 million. Your department came back and cut it to $11 million dollars. Is that true or false?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: (Mike not on.) Our department said at that time our figures do not coincide with yours.

MR. McCLELLAND: Was my statement true or false?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We see it at $11 million. You are absolutely wrong because they are still meeting, Mr. Member. I wish that could be explained more clearly: they are still meeting.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that the reason they are still meeting is that their budget was cut from $40 million to $11 million. They thought they had a five-year budget. Your department cut it and now they've got to go back and meet and try and salvage a mess.

MR. McGEER: The Premier's having trouble with his 2.8 second attention span today.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been asked some pretty direct and vital questions by myself and by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). We want answers to those questions and I'll remind the Minister of what they were.

She stated last night that in the nine months that Mr. Bremer held office as the commissioner of education, she would have expected something to be produced. Did she or did she not receive from the commissioner of education any proposals or documents, formal or informal, on matters relating to the public school system and other facets of educational change in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I want to reiterate again that on the public school system I have received no formal document at all. That's why I was quite amazed, as I said last night, to hear about this presentation on television. There was no formal document. There were some very informal discussions, but nothing in them that I could have taken anything concrete out of.

As to the other activities of the commissioner, I'd like to clear one thing — chairing of the university task force, correct; and helping to organize the Fraser Valley community college. As for working towards the Living Community Report, which was recently tabled in the House, the commissioner was not responsible for the work in that report.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, could I follow up on what the Minister had to say? The Minister has flatly denied that she received any concrete suggestions from the commissioner of education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No formal presentations.

MR. McGEER: Formal presentations.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Right.

MR. McGEER: I have here a memo from John Bremer, commissioner of education, dated October 10, 1973. It follows up two earlier presentations the commissioner had made to the Minister of Education. Here's one of them that was presented last summer at a discussion to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's pretty formal.

MR. McGEER: Well, it's what's left of the commissioner's notes. What it is, essentially, is a detailed plan of what should be required. You will find on the notes in this document, and the Minister was given them.... She said she had no plan of any kind presented by the commissioner. She said last night she was astonished by what appeared on television because it was the first she had ever heard of it. The commissioner laid a blueprint in the interview he gave which was given in some detail to the House by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

In the notes of this particular meeting which was held last summer, there are six different acts that the commissioner was proposing. There's a flow sheet for how the universities should be set up, how the regional colleges should be set up, how the public schools should be set up, how Indian education should be set up, how continuing education should be set up in the province, and down at the bottom there's a note about public philosophy — all presented orally to the Minister, all laid out in chart form, a detailed plan similar to what was given on television last night that the Minister of Education denied that she had ever heard.

[ Page 1512 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, where's the formal presentation? All given orally, huh?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): How do you present an oral chart? How did you make the chart?

MR. McGEER: The Minister must have a copy of this. If she was too dumb to take notes she shouldn't be the Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just withdraw!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhhh! Withdraw! Withdraw!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey be seated, please?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, I would like a withdrawal of his remarks. Considering where it came from, I'm not going to make an issue of it.

The second point I want to make is that at no time did I receive even a copy of this document, and that's why I was quite unable to recognize it when it was presented last night — whatever it is.

MR. McGEER: I think that the problem the Minister has, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister is obviously incapable of recognizing proposals when they're put forward. She claims she hasn't seen something that was presented to her in essentially the same form that it was presented on television right in her office, where she was the only person there to appreciate it. She had plenty of opportunity to learn from this, to develop a programme and to set forward a course of educational change. I might say that the little document referred to by the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) — the little statement, the miniscule statement — doesn't bear much relationship to the broad concept laid out in the plan.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we've got a memo to the Minister, again submitted last summer, which asks for changes in the regulations and for a task force in the public school system to be set up. I'll quote from it:

"The existing public school system carries out its work through a social and administrative organization which partly by legislation, partly by regulation and partly by custom provides roles such as student or pupil, teacher, principal and superintendent. These roles are in part set down in Part VI and Part VII of the Public Schools Act.

"The need both for flexibility and for a greater range of educational opportunities suggests that the pattern of decision-making needs to be re-examined. To give more local autonomy, as one example, means that roles are being redefined since new and different people are involved in decision-making.

"Accordingly, it seems desirable to set up a task force of the commission to inquire into the suitability and efficacy of the existing social and administrative organization, to make recommendations about changes in role definition and in the overall structure.

"Since the crucial question is one of leadership, the task force is asked to consider particularly the appropriate forms of leadership which should be available in the public school system and the relationship between educational leadership and administration. The task of school administrators and supervisors, like the task of students and teachers, has become increasingly difficult and taxing."

I pause here, Mr. Chairman, to say that this was a very clear request of the commissioner to establish a formal task force on public school education, to bring forward details that the commissioner was not himself unilaterally prepared to bring down. The second part of this memo:

"It is possible for future appointments that we need to consider the whole question of administrative tenure. So for the coming year, the existing regulation 56 will be amended so that all new administrative and supervisory personnel will be given acting appointments only. This amendment will be reviewed as soon as recommendations are in from the task force. "

Now, that appears to have reappeared in her own White Paper as recommendation 4, but the point here is that the commissioner of education first of all formally requested last August that a task force on public education be established to provide details of what the organizational and legislative changes should be. This task force was to parallel those that had been set up on university governance, and the community colleges, and on other aspects of our educational system. Secondly, he asked for a stay on administrative proceedings with regard to appointments so as not to anticipate and undermine the results of that task force.

Mr. Chairman, there was no reply from the Minister. That memo was ignored. Now I read a memo from the commissioner of education on October 10, 1973:

"I think it is useful to distinguish some different activities which may lead to change in educational activity in the province:

"(1) Changes in legislation;

"(2) General discussions which quicken and enliven local operations;

[ Page 1513 ]

"(3) Model and demonstration projects.

"The limitation of these three activities, all of which the commission is involved in, is that they differ in translating into operational activity.

"In reflecting over my experience in the last five months, I would like to suggest that rather than responding to crises as they arise, the Minister should take a very clear initiative and identify. as publicly as possible a problem area which should engage the energies of everybody.

"I would be willing to identify one or two such areas which seem to me to be ripe for consideration. But regardless of the selected areas I think the time has come for energetic, operational leadership.

"The two areas I would suggest for attention are the colleges and/or secondary schools, and I would be willing to draft out a general strategy for dealing with either or both of these problem areas if this would be of any service to you."

Mr. Chairman, that memo, which was also ignored, pleads for leadership from the Minister. This commissioner was not going around British Columbia trying to set out policy for the government, as the Minister said in her first excuse for dismissing him. This memo quite clearly states that that man was willing to do whatever the Minister of Education asked; and he was pleading for her not to deal with crises as they arise, but to show operational leadership.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Last year you tossed him aside and this year you want him back.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, please. I'm merely showing to that Minister, through you, the difference between what the commissioner of education was doing as evidenced by the memos he was sending to the Minister, and what she has said he was doing in her public statements regarding his dismissal.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, she said he was going around the province setting policy at a time when she had in her possession a memo from the commissioner pleading for her to anticipate problems and provide leadership — offering to draft for her strategy so that could be done by her. No memos? No statements of any kind? No documents? Mr. Chairman, there was a flood of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your version. Hold up that formal report. Hold up that formal report again.

MR. McGEER: Here are some. Here's the one, EDGE. Here's the "Working Paper on University Governance." "Towards the Learning Community." There was a plan she was given in chart form last summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, get off it!

MR. McGEER: There was a teacher training proposal. There was a report on continuing education.

Mr. Chairman, that's not bad for a year in office when all the time you've been pleading with the Minister (1) to show some leadership, and (2) to allow things to be done such as the establishment of a task force in the public school system so that people could be involved, and the kinds of decisions put forward that would be acceptable to the general public.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the commissioner of education is going down a path which is totally unacceptable to the government, then the government has reason to stand up and say: "The commissioner is going down that road. We will not take responsibility for implementing it; therefore we have to let that commissioner go. He's competent, but his course of direction is not our course of direction."

But Mr. Chairman, it is not satisfactory to dismiss a man and say he's produced nothing when he's given a flood of useful documents to the Minister and to the public. It isn't good enough to dismiss him saying he's usurping the functions of the Minister when he sent her memos pleading with her to take leadership and offering to give her the sort of supporting documents, in her name, that she would be able to act upon.

It isn't good enough to say you are dismissing someone because you don't like his style. What the Minister has said does not agree with the facts. And the Premier's role in all of this is a pretty sad one. I don't think any Ministers of the Crown should take a problem to the Premier. He doesn't solve them; he creates them.

The Minister apparently had no intention of dismissing the commissioner, because when the Premier announced he was through because he was "a bit of a flop, you know," the Minister hadn't any idea that that was going to be done. I'm not sure the Premier had any idea either before he did it. His tongue goes into gear before his mind.

The only way to correct the situation now is to admit you were wrong, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Get that commission operating again, do what the commissioner requested — establish a task force on the public school system —

[ Page 1514 ]

apologize to him so that he can regain his good name, and let him get on with the work of charting for us educational change in British Columbia.

A lot of people, I think, are now beginning to realize that the man was doing a pretty worthwhile job, that he was cut off in mid-stream, and that what we have left behind, judging from "The Public School System: Directions for Change," is going to be pretty pathetic by comparison.

I would ask the Minister to tell us whether there were any other documents that we haven't yet brought out that she received during that period she said she was getting nothing from the commissioner.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.