CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Education estimates
On the amendment to vote 38.

Mrs. Jordan — 1843
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1846
Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1846
Mrs. Jordan — 1848
Mr. Schroeder — 1848
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1849
Mr. Gibson — 1850
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1852
Mr. Phillips — 1853
Mr. McGeer — 1857
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 1859
Mrs. Webster — 1859
Mr. McClelland — 1861
Mr. Lewis — 1863
Mr. McClelland — 1867

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(continued)

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

On the amendment.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Before the dinner hour, Mr. Chairman, we found ourselves in the position of debating the motion of non-confidence in the Minister. A number of speakers had spoken on the reason for such a motion, some with considerable regret. For my part, I was starting to point out how one of the most serious criticisms of the Minister was her inability to understand and her unwillingness to listen.

On this subject, when it has been brought up before, the Minister has repeatedly said that it is the public who simply do not understand. People are deeply concerned about her turning a deaf ear to the general concern of the public and the teachers. Her response to this, rather than offering leadership to the department and responding to some of the concerns that don't need much to implement, and her response to the turning of a deaf ear, is to suggest that her department is going to put out a publication so that the public will understand. She says the reason is because there has been so much criticism of her administration and so much criticism of the programmes that she has not introduced but has had under discussion and under analysis and under analysis of the analysis. She says that the public simply don't understand, teachers simply don't understand, parents simply don't understand and students simply don't understand. In short, what this Minister is saying by turning a deaf ear is that everyone is out of step but our Eileen Dailly.

If the Minister would listen, and if she would act on some of the good advice she has had, there would be no need for this type of sheet, which either is going to be an apology for the Minister paid for by taxpayers' money or else yet another propaganda sheet. That seems to be the only manner in which this government feels it can impose its views which are not popular with the public. If the Minister does this, she is once again — as we have seen in department after department where these propaganda sheets have been introduced at the taxpayers' expense, sometimes more than one to a department — showing that she doesn't understand.

In this instance, she doesn't understand the role of these civil servants. Once again we will see professional civil servants being placed in the position where they must be responsible for the publication and printing of propaganda on a partisan basis. In doing this and in showing that she doesn't understand, the Minister imposes upon the pride and the responsibility of the civil servants. She simply doesn't seem to understand that the professional civil servants have always, should now and, to my knowledge, wish in the future to operate on a non-partisan, non-political basis. They are career people dedicated to their jobs, trained for their jobs. By the Minister imposing her views which, if they follow the other department's, will be on a partisan nature, she is inflicting a role on the civil servants which they are not prepared to take in light of their concern for their professional standing, but which they must take in light of their concern for their jobs and taking care of their families.

Once again we see another example of this Minister's inability and unwillingness to listen and her inability to understand.

The Minister has been looking very scornful when I mention parents who feel this concern. It might be of interest for her to know that on the day when the parents came to the Legislature, many of that group expressed this concern.

I'd like to cite another example, a specific example on this which has been brought to my attention as to where the Minister's own views are being imposed upon parents in this province, and teachers and, in the long range, students. That is in the whole area of family life education in the schools. What the Minister doesn't seem to grasp is that parents themselves are not opposed to expanding programmes in the schools. They are concerned in this instance where the Minister has not been able to come to grips with fundamental problems in education, has not been able to make decisions in the fundamental areas of education but is imposing a philosophical view on the educational system in British Columbia.

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

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for Shuswap says it's not true. If he were in his own constituency, he would know that 800 parents in the constituency of Shuswap attended a meeting because of their concern for much of the content in this programme. At the end of that meeting, when the parents went to the Minister of Education...pardon me, on another occasion they went to the Minister of Education when she has failed to convince them of the value of this total programme in the schools.

[ Page 1844 ]

MR. LEWIS: Did you read the guideline?

MRS. JORDAN: They appealed to her and said: "What can we do as parents if we do not approve of this programme being taught in our school district?" Mr. Chairman, the answer of the Minister to those parents was: "Then I'll have to send someone up from the department to educate you." Now that is a reason why....

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think I can just take so much of this. That is a complete lie — the statement which the Member just made. I wish her to withdraw it. At no time did I ever make any such statement re parents.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We'll accept the statement of the Hon. Minister correcting the matter. I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you. The parents there are aware of the statements made by the Minister. But what concerns them in this whole area....

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to accept without question that statement of the Hon. Minister of Education. This is normal parliamentary procedure.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to transgress on parliamentary procedure but it is a matter of a parent's word, with witnesses, against this Minister's word. If the Minister wishes me to withdraw, then let her prove she didn't say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am not asking the Hon. Member to withdraw; I am merely cautioning her that she should accept the word of the Hon. Minister on this matter.

MRS. JORDAN: All right, Mr. Chairman. I'll accept the word of the Minister for the record, but I wish to go on more with the concern of the parents in this programme.

One of the points that they are concerned about is that introduction of sexual relationships and references to sex begin at too early a stage in the school curriculum and the kindergarten, which is not a teaching situation in the sense of the word that the classroom is, but is accepted and thought to be a situation in which young, people learn to socialize and learn to express themselves. The parents feel that the introduction of some of the suggested illustrations and the use of teachable moments as advocated by the department is an intrusion upon their rights as parents as to what their children should be taught in kindergarten and an intrusion on their rights as parents as to what, in fact, their children should learn in terms of moral values and family relationships.

These children are generally of the age of five. Surely the Minister can respect the right of the parents to exercise their responsibilities and their authority in terms of what their children should learn in this arena.

They also are concerned with the curriculum itself and to whose values it refers. They feel that in many areas of the curriculum, particularly in the lower grades, the state, in the form of the Department of Education under the direction of this Minister, is again coming between the values of the family — their philosophical and religious approach to life and their moral concepts — and the child.

The Department of Education suggested that this programme should not be compulsory. Yet we have the reaction of the Minister in Salmon Arm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What reaction?

MRS. JORDAN: We also examine the curriculum itself and the direction to the teachers and the school boards, and that is that they should utilize teachable moments throughout the day for the introduction of various aspects of this programme. The parents feel that if you utilize teachable moments at random, then this, in effect, diminishes the right of choice — it deletes the right of choice.

If the Minister wishes to introduce a family life programme into the schools, then why not do it on an optional basis, as these parents wish? There are some parents who wish it and some who don't. I suggest to you, Madam Minister, that the parents who don't have as much right to exercise their wishes as those who do. I'd like to read the Minister some of their concerns, and this is in relation to one school district. They say: "We are told by the elementary education supervisor that the elementary programme was not voluntary, and we as parents have no choice but to have our children take it."

Now there's a statement that is in direct conflict to what the Minister said tonight. Yet this is in the same area where the Minister suggests I'm not conveying the impression of these parents correctly. They go on to suggest that "the course content is an invasion of the privacy and moral conscience of the family unit and the sanctity of marriage, regardless of

[ Page 1845 ]

what the proposed aims of the course may be."

These are their views, Madam Minister, but they are views that surely warrant consideration. They are concerned about the use of sensitivity in this course, a highly specialized science and art, really. Many adults I've talked to who have taken this type of programme through church groups and educational groups have come home with severe reservations in relation to themselves and their own ability to cope, and most certainly have severe reservations about their children being exposed to this type of programme, particularly when it is in the hands, largely, of people who are not trained.

There is question on the part of many parents as to whether or not there are that many teachers in the school system who are competent to teach the curriculum as it is outlined. They are trained to teach specific courses, whether they're athletics or math or science or art, but are they trained to teach this? Just because one is a teacher or a doctor or a minister, it does not necessarily mean that he is an authority on all fields. It's suggested, and I think it's proven, that those in professional occupations, as well as those in any other walk of life, are subject to the same family problems and marital stresses as anyone else. One's degree of general education cannot indicate one's competency to take upon oneself the responsibility that is put on the teacher in this programme.

They are concerned that the values of the teachers themselves will be introduced into the child's thinking, not in a general sense but by their own lifestyle. Quite obviously how one's lifestyle is to oneself is how one is going to reflect your thinking when you're talking about family relationships. When you're talking about the value of the family in society, the parents question whether a teacher who is single and enjoying the luxuries of a modern life is in a position to present an unbiased point of view to their children as to what makes up the ideal family unit.

These are some of the concerns, Madam Minister. I'd like to refer to one of the reference books they're concerned about. It was mentioned by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his estimates as being an example of a fine, fine manual for the education of children. It's called "Rhythm and Blues" and it's printed, I understand with the help of a provincial government grant, by a number of young people in Vancouver. I stand to be corrected if this is not so.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: There is much in this of interest and, I think, much of merit, but one point I'd like to bring forth in this particular debate that the parents object to is under the subject of birth control. It outlines the various means of birth control including, under permanent methods, sterilization and abortion.

Then it goes on to future methods.

The objection there, Madam Minister, is that the presentation by this booklet would appear to condone abortion as a means of birth control. Now this may not be the intention of the Minister, and this is where her ability to listen and her ability to offer leadership can come into play. It's just one example, but it's a very real example and it's a matter of very serious concern to many parents and many young people in this province.

This booklet "Rhythm and Blues" is, in essence, by inference, leading young people to believe that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. That, Madam Minister, is something that the parents of this province, to a large degree, say is not the prerogative of the Education department.

So without going into a lot more details, and analyzing the course in full — and I will be prepared to make more statements on it further on in the Minister's estimates — I would urge her first of all to make it very clear to every school district and to every parent in this province that this is an optional programme, and to back that clear statement up by the leadership which is required to make sure that if parents do not wish their children to take part in this programme in the schools, then they have the right for those children to not attend those classes, and that if those children do not attend those classes, they won't in any way be jeopardizing their opportunity to learn the more basic programmes in the other parts of the curriculum.

I'm not in any way, Madam Minister, suggesting that those parents who wish their children to take this programme be denied that right. But I do suggest, in being Minister and in having to assume a position of responsibility and leadership — you introduced this programme — that it has met with considerable concern on the part of parents both as to content, extent of content and the age leanings of the various portions of the curriculum. It is your responsibility to see that state, under your direction and through the Department of Education, does not come between the parent, their moral and social values, and the child. It is also the responsibility of the Minister to see that if this course is taught in the schools, it is taught by teachers who have had the opportunity to fully understand the programme and to be properly trained in the various aspects of the programme.

I further suggest that it is the right of the parent to make known at the local level, in their local schools — and to be heard — their objections to certain reference books that are being used and are recommended in the course. These reasons and these objections should not only be acknowledged but should be taken into consideration.

I hope the Minister will stand up tonight and make clear her position on this programme. As I mentioned

[ Page 1846 ]

before, I hope she will assure the parents of this province, who feel that this programme, as it is currently outlined, is to a large degree an intrusion in their responsibilities and their rights, that they should have the freedom of choice.

The Minister knows that there are two families at Salmon Arm who have taken their children out of the school, and the Department of Education was kind enough to suggest that they wouldn't be prosecuted. But I suggest to the Minister that this is a public school system, and those parents and those children have the right to attend the school without having this type of imposition imposed upon them.

I bring this up under the motion of non-confidence on the Minister's salary because to date she has refused to listen and she had refused to show the leadership necessary on a very difficult subject.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this has been, as usual, a most interesting speech from the Hon. Member, full of the usual inconsistencies, misinformation and innuendo.

First of all, let's deal with her opening remarks when she starts off on the tack that this Minister and this department is giving no direction and no leadership. At the same time, her leader (Mr. Bennett) is running around the province, almost at every public meeting pointing out that the Department of Education is too heavy-handed and, is becoming centralized. Now I don't know who speaks for the party. I don't think anyone does. I don't think anyone in that party, in particular the Member who has just spoken and especially the Leader, have any understanding at all of what's going on in education in this province. You can't have it both ways. Your leader says: "We want local autonomy, local control." On the other hand, he says it's too heavily centralized. Then another Member gets up from the party and says: "We want more central control and leadership."

Now when we get down to the family life programme — the very point which you are making and your concern — I accept the fact that when you introduce a family life programme it is a sensitive area. I made it very clear from the very beginning in a number of circulars and letters which were sent to every school board of this province, and in which we simply said that we endorse and we believe that schools should have a family life programme.

On the other hand, I said to them that we were only giving a very loose, general guide on that programme. It is up to the local school board to develop their programme, but only if they first consult with the parents of the district. That has been made very, very clear.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind them of standing order 40(3), that they not interrupt the person who is speaking. Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The very things which you're asking on behalf of the parents have already been done. The school boards of this province know that as Minister I don't condone a family life education programme which has not been brought about without prior consultation with the parents.

Secondly, they all know very clearly that they can opt out of the programme.

I am concerned that some of the school districts in this province, unfortunately — I'll be frank with you — have not involved the parents to the degree they should. I'm concerned that there are still districts in this province which don't have family life programmes even in existence.

Because of that, we are doing a survey of the better family life programmes going on in the Province of British Columbia in many school districts with no controversy, with great success, because the parents have been involved and the programme has been well thought out. After that survey we will be ready to assist the boards who are having difficulty.

But if you want to assist the area that you are specifically talking about, may I say that you are not going to assist it one bit with the statements you are making. In fact you will just inflame the controversy.

Now either you believe in family life education or you don't. I think it is most unfortunate for you to take the tack you are, Madam Member.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I just want to make it quite clear to the Member who just took her seat that the programme is optional, that it is not compulsory, that it must involve family and parent consultation before it is put in, and that the Department of Education takes the responsibility in the area of training professional people in this particular field. As a matter of fact we have funded pilot projects to develop people who are skilled in this area.

Let me emphasize again that the family life programme is not just sex education. It is consumer education. It is learning how to get along with your fellow person. There are many, many other areas to family life education, and I think it is most unfortunate that in 1975, when the students of the province are asking for this programme, when many parents are asking for it, that this programme should be held up in this House in the manner in which you used it, a very negative manner. You are not going to do a service to the young people of this province.

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

[ Page 1847 ]

Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan discussed a health matter under the Minister's vote, and so I thought that I would just like to get up and discuss that matter for a minute or two as Minister of Health.

Mr. Chairman, the Health department had a look at a publication that was put together by a group of university students two years ago under a LIP programme.

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

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I know the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) is feeling badly this evening because his leader got up and discussed the Minister Without Portfolio for northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) as the first speaker and didn't even let his Member speak. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, what he did earlier was offer his potential cabinet post to the Liberals.

In any event, I'd like to get back to this whole question, and I think it is one that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Can we continue with the debate? I ask the Hon. Premier and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to restrain themselves, and I would ask the Hon. Minister to proceed.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get on with the book that was edited by a group of university students. They offered it to the Health department, and my department looked at it. The senior officials in the Health department, many of whom have been there for any number of years — a number of doctors in the department, a number of public health nurses in the department, very responsible health people — took a look at that book and they suggested that what was in that book was certainly worthy of support because it was understood. We moved it out into the community and found that it was well understood by the people that it was to serve.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we went on, and when the home and school group has been here we have shown it to those many, many, many parents that visit here, and a number of people, parents of our children, supported that information. Getting that information into the hands of children who should have access to it if, in fact, they want it was, as far as they were concerned, a priority.

Therefore the Health department printed 50,000 copies of it and made them available. Some school boards have not availed themselves of it. That's on their heads. Others have. Some home and school groups, PTAs, have made that book available to their children, and that is what it is there for.

You know, to use all of the kind of mid-Victorian terms, asking that children bury their heads in the sand.... Actually what we are saying to children today in our society is: "Go to the corner, pick up a Playboy, pick up some other kind of magazine that is even far, far more revealing and that way get your education."

I Suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that we should be telling the truth to our children, not hiding their heads in the sand and letting them learn everything they have to learn from the gutter, as is the position, obviously, of the opposition over here. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate....

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. COCKE: And to take that out on the Minister of Education is just a bit much in this House. It shows that they presented an amendment that isn't even worth tearing up. It's unfortunate.

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...about the Minister of Education, who has been continually maligned by a group of irresponsible people ...

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...taking on one of the toughest portfolios of any portfolio in government ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and any other Members to restrain themselves, please.

HON. MR. COCKE: taking on that kind of a portfolio in inflated times, trying to fulfil the wishes and the aspirations of everyone in society for a better education system, asked to turn around a system that was created by her predecessor...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don Brothers.

HON. MR. COCKE: ...that was put together by all sorts of bits and pieces. Mr. Chairman, to suggest

[ Page 1948 ]

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

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

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

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It's the truth and you know it. That's why you're up there in her defence.

HON. MR. COCKE: For her defence! I got up here for one reason and one reason only: because she was, as usual, wrongly maligned.

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: No. Do you know something? It was the most difficult portfolio you could imagine in government. Not one of those weaklings over there could even scratch the surface.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. COCKE: Not one is even capable of polishing her shoes, Mr. Chairman. I support the Minister of Education completely.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, quite obviously, that tirade we were treated to says: there, but for the grace of the Minister of Health, goes the good Lord, because he has stood up in this House and proclaimed that he and his experts are the judge and jury of what the children of this province should learn in terms of health, health education, sex education, family life education and goodness knows what.

Mr. Chairman, my point in this debate was the right of those parents who were concerned about some of the content of this programme and their right to exercise their option not to have their children take it until the course was revised. Let it go on the record that that Minister made it clear that he wants to ban Playboy magazine and other magazines. That is his position. Let the public know it. And let the public know that Playboy is a reference book to the family life programme in the Province of British Columbia, because it is. It is.

If the Minister of Health had taken the time to read the curriculum and the instructions to the teachers, he would find that Playboy is indeed one of the resource materials for this programme.

Mr. Chairman, let it also clearly go on the record that the Minister of Health of this province condones and advocates birth control by, abortion.

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

MRS. JORDAN: You got up in this House...and I told that Minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that they are concerned with the book "Rhythm and Blues." I am not afraid to name it, as the Minister was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering an amendment of non-confidence in regard to the Minister of Education; so I would ask....

Interjection.

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

MRS. JORDAN: What a humorous comment from the joker of the financial institution of the Province of British Columbia.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair and speak to the amendment, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to carry this on, but I think it should be very clear that the Minister of Health spoke in defence of the Minister of Education's position, as the public understands it, on this programme. He is proving that he too sets himself up as judge and jury and is unwilling to listen to the parents of this province. I would say again: let it go on the record and let the public of British Columbia know that the Minister of Health in this province advocates abortion as a means of birth control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering an amendment under the Minister of Education's vote. I would ask you to confine your remarks to her vote.

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

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): If this last tirade which we have just been witnessing here is any indication, I think that by comparison you would have to say it's like going to kindergarten, comparing it with the furor that goes on in the concerned parents' associations in Richmond and in Burnaby, as you know, and now we've learned in Shuswap as well.

I think that likely it's another good indication of the validity of the solution that I suggested this afternoon. More flexibility should be developed in the school system by allowing parent councils

[ Page 1849 ]

attached to local schools to make decisions just exactly like this. I've looked at the curriculum and I know that there are good facets to the family life programme. However, there are parents who would not agree with either you or me and who take extreme exception to the 5 per cent that is sex education related. As a result, I think that it would be fantastic and I think that we could do away with a lot of the misunderstanding and with a lot of the sense of imposed curriculum if we allowed parent councils that I talked about this afternoon to be given just exactly that responsibility with regard to individual schools. It would not even have to be a school in itself; it could be a classroom. I think it would be fantastic.

Well, one of the other areas, and one of the reasons for this motion of no-confidence in the first place, was the area of school construction. I want to thank the Premier for having given the figures of actual school construction because, as you know, Madam Minister, there is some misunderstanding.

There are different phrases being used when it comes to dollar values. There is the phrase called "authorized expenditure." It has a futuristic sound to it and doesn't give us any clear indication of what actually happened in the construction field. Then there is the other one: "bond issue." Once again, in comparing the figures for bond issue in any given calendar year, it doesn't relate at all to the actual number of dollars spent in capital construction.

In the press release in which the Minister said that some $91 million worth of public school construction did take place or was authorized for 1974, a separate release also indicated that the $91 million wasn't all capital construction — only $85 million was and the rest was replacement costs. I'd like the Minister to explain the difference.

Also, the reason for the no-confidence is this: this Minister and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) had a long hue and cry about the catch up process that had to take place in the Province on British Columbia so that we could have enough classrooms in the province. Yet, when you take a look at the actual number of dollars spent and divide it by the increased cost factor, you find out that the catch up process is really not a catch up process at all.

It's barely, barely keeping pace.

We have to preface any comparison with a few pertinent facts. For instance, back in 1963 frame building construction was considered to be about $12 per square foot. I'm not saying that you can build a brick-and-mortar school building for $12, but I'm saying that was the frame building construction cost.

In 1971 those construction costs were $20 and by 1974 those construction costs were $30. Let's just use those as comparative figures to give us an indication of what the actual catch up process really was.

In 1971...the Minister of Finance has just given me the answer: $53,987,000 — say $54 million worth of capital construction. That's for 1971. This was the last year of the previous administration which was scolded by that Minister for not doing enough in capital construction and not providing enough classrooms. Then, lo and behold, in 1974 with costs having increased from $20 a square foot to $30 a square foot, a bit of simple mathematics tells you that you'd have to spend $81 million just to have the same amount of construction. Yet the information from the department says that $85 million was the actual amount, and I don't see the catch up value.

Another thing that has caused some concern before — I've asked this question and I don't believe I've ever received the answer — is that whenever the Minister talks in terms of the capital construction, he talks about teaching areas rather than classrooms. I'd like to know whether that's actually 751 classrooms. What is a teaching area? Does a teaching area include a library? Does the teaching area include gymnasium? If that is true, then in the last year did we have 751 teaching areas including libraries and gymnasia or is it exclusive of those? It becomes important. All that was added in 1974, was 751 reaching areas, but something like 2,000 teachers were added in 1974. The question is: where do teachers teach if they don't have a teaching area?

I wonder about the confidence. I wonder whether or not the catch up process that the Minister talks about is really taking place. This is one of the reasons for the motion of non-confidence. Perhaps the Minister can explain. Perhaps the catch up process is taking place, but it doesn't appear to be — certainly not to me and certainly not to the school boards around the province. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You can toss figures round, I know, Mr. Member. But the point is that we can't give you the final figures until the annual report comes out for last year, as you know. The year we're going into....

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

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think we have to realize, too, the point I was making when I said catch up. I was referring at that time, if you look back, to the catch up in the areas of libraries and gymnasiums, which I think you would have to concede as a member of the government.... You weren't a member of the government at that time but a member of the party. There was a freeze by the former government on libraries and gymnasiums. When I spoke of catch up, I made it quite clear that our government had no intention to impose such a freeze. Since we have been in office we have

[ Page 1850 ]

improved libraries and gymnasiums.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think that was one of the great condemnations of the former government: they did not think libraries and gymnasiums were essential to a student's learning environment in a school. It is something that the public of B.C. will take a long time to forget and will remember about the Social Credit government. They won't forget it.

The other area you asked about was in comparing the matter of the number of teachers placed in the classroom against the number of classrooms.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: That were hired, rather. You're quite right. There are areas where school boards have on their own decided to move into what they call flexible class staffing — teacher staffing. What that means is simply that they have come to an agreement with their own staff so that sometimes two teachers can operate out of one classroom. They use their counsellors and their librarians — all those are included, of course, as you know, when you talk about pupil-teacher ratio.

I think it's a good idea. As you said, when we compare construction costs, we're getting into the area of $40 a square foot and more now. Yet I think I mentioned in an earlier speech that I returned from Regina to find out that there they are bringing them in still in the $20 a square foot bracket, although costs and labour are cheaper. However, they are using some innovative building practices.

As you know, I had a special conference of school trustees, teachers and the department officials called to talk about ways of creating more innovative and economical ways of building our schools. But at no time did we say that we had any intentions of cutting back on the libraries and the gymnasiums. At no time has this government held back on requests from the school boards when they have placed their requests. If there has been a hold up.... I conceded it when we were discussing it earlier in the 51-step area. We have been moving on that. We also have considerably speeded up school construction with the removal of the capital referendum, which I think you would agree would bring about a speed up process.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the Minister with interest here about this business of the 2,000 teachers being hired and the 750 teaching areas, or whatever the exact number might be when the figures come down for this year. Mr. Chairman, how can the pupil-teacher ratio be improving when the number of classrooms isn't going up, roughly, as quickly as the number of teachers? That's not a catch up, Mr. Chairman; that's just a catch-22. This government hasn't been performing on the task it set itself on pupil-teacher ratios. I think that's abundantly apparent.

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

MR. GIBSON: "They know that out there," the Hon. Member says. They know that school by school.

Earlier on in this debate, on April 15, the last time we had a chance to debate the Education Minister's estimates, I posed to the Minister a certain number of questions which I'm not going to repeat in any detail now. But just to refresh her mind, I'll go through the subject headings and ask her if at this time she would be kind enough to make some comment on the arguments I made then.

The first proposal was that the assessment programme the Minister's department has entered on in the question of language arts should be extended throughout the curriculum system and should be put on a continuing basis by an institution which one might call the education council of British Columbia, a group appointed by the Minister, representing parents, teachers, students — all the groups of the community which have a legitimate interest in this largest single impact of any department of government or any industry in this province on the lives of British Columbians — over 500,000 students and hundreds of millions of dollars. I think that that sector is so important that it could well merit its own independent council to advise the Minister.

The second representation I made to her was that the legislative committee activity in the field of education, which went forward in the restricted area of collective bargaining in school district administration last year, should be expanded by a continuing term of reference, and that committee could very usefully, just in the Minister's own terms, sit around the province and be a lightning rod and a weather vane for her department and bring her good advice from around the province.

I next raised the question of French language tuition financing in this province and asked what representations the Minister is making to Ottawa to improve this current situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that we're considering the amendment and I would ask him that rather than dealing with questions of a general nature, which should more properly be brought up under the vote, he relate his remarks to this amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to satisfy myself which way I should vote on this

[ Page 1851 ]

amendment, and you'll understand that the Minister's performance of her duties in these areas has some relevance to that.

The present situation, as I understand it, is that Ottawa pays only 50 per cent of the first-year costs of French language education. It's only seed money, in other words; it's no continuing assistance to the province. My question is what representation the Minister has made to Ottawa to improve this situation, because it should be a continuing thing, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) — you understanding seed corn very well. We need more than that. We need something continuous.

I've asked the Minister to explain, when the average residential household in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, after the application of the supplementary grant, has a tax increase of over $50, how the increase in the school tax removal grant of $40 coincides with the government's programme of taking the taxes off property for schools. Obviously it's sliding backwards.

Very brief questions, Mr. Chairman. I asked the Minister what exactly is meant by the term of reference to this committee to study the services provided to children in independent schools. The Premier — I think it was during the course of his estimates or the debate on the budget — gave us some very tantalizing comments. He indicated that this committee might be able to go beyond the narrow concept of school buses, which was specifically mentioned, and expand into the area of basic educational services to the 25,000 children in this province who are presently denied, and whose families are presently denied, the proper relief that they should have in respect of the taxes that they pay for educational services and which receive no assistance whatsoever from the public purse toward the cost of education of those children — education that in every way meets, and must meet, the educational standards of this province. It's tax discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on this in a satisfactory way or else I will stand up and have a great deal more to say about it later. It's 25,000 children in this province.

The instructional unit. In the interests of the proper attention to the education of primary students in this province, will the Minister not now lower the instructional unit size of primary classes from 25 down to 20 to finally bring it to some equivalence with secondary size classes? This is only right, Mr. Chairman, because the primary years are the years when a child learns how to learn. If they are ever to acquire a love of the acquisition of education in its broadest sense throughout their lives, they must learn it in those years.

I would ask the Minister what plans she has to implement some kind of a provincial inspectorate, or means of auditing classroom performance. I appreciate that that is a very prickly thicket. (Laughter.) I won't try that again, Mr. Chairman. It's a prickly thicket.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

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

Mr. Chairman, continuing with the reiteration of these questions which have yet to be answered, we must have — and I asked the Minister to endorse — a reduction in the size of the school districts whereby those districts have the freedom to appoint their own district superintendents, currently appointed in any district of a size below 20,000 as a provincial civil servant by the Department of Education. If we really believe in the autonomy for school districts, we must allow those districts to appoint their own chief executive officers. I appreciate the problems that the Minister has with her public service and looking after these people who have served for many years as they should be looked after.

So the threshold should be reduced gradually, but it should be reduced immediately, Mr. Chairman, to school districts of 10,000. If the Minister has another number in mind, I'd like her to suggest it. I'm certainly open to different sizes, but let's establish a principle that that threshold is going down.

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

MR. GIBSON: We didn't start last year, Hon. Member. It was a good deal before that. There's certainly been enough time to say that the experiment has been a success. I certainly know in my own school district in North Vancouver — and we're fortunate enough to be above that threshold and appoint our own superintendent — it has been a success.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Finally under this section of my questioning, I'd ask the Minister what she is prepared to say about the future thrust of the province in terms of the pupil-teacher ratio. I would submit to her that the time has come now to cease putting all the concentration of the incremental funds of the province into lowering that pupil-teacher ratio. I think it's time to spend more of these funds on assistance to teachers, to teaching assistants in the classroom, to the use of outside experts who can bring, if not a great ability to teach, a great fund of

[ Page 1852 ]

outside experience into the classroom to help the teacher in giving these facts to the students, and an increase in the funds available for audiovisual and other teaching aids.

There is a list of simple questions which I've asked the Minister before and I've reiterated briefly now. I hope for some answers in this debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First question, to the Hon. Member, in answer — language arts assessment: he's hoping it will spread beyond that and I can assure you that it is our intention to move into other areas besides the language arts in an assessment programme.

The educational council, I think, is a very interesting recommendation and perhaps that's something that could be discussed maybe in the education committee or in further discussions with the Member himself.

I think the very fact that we're ready to listen to it is more than you got from the former government when a suggestion came up from a Member of the opposition, I'll tell you that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Three years.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We'd be quite interested. This is the first year he's brought this up for our consideration.

The other point mentioned was about French. The programmes are not really funded on a formula basis, as you know. There are about 16 different programmes set up by the federal government now which we have opted into. I'm not quite sure specifically how to answer your question. There's no formula. The federal government provides these programmes and, as you know, since we became government we have done everything possible to avail ourselves of any funds, which, of course, the former government did not do.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, store it up. But the council of Ministers do have this on their agenda when they discuss the whole area of a second language. They do have a special committee of officials who work with the federal government in the whole area of the second-language programming. I can give to the Hon. Member a copy of the outline of the programmes that we're now involved in right across Canada, including B.C.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The tax removal grant. I would suggest, as that comes under the Minister of Finance's estimates and not under mine, that you can question that during the Minister of Finance's estimates.

The basic services committee. You were asking me to be more specific about it. The committee is just being set up now. The membership of the committee will be shortly announced, and I can't answer what the recommendations are until the committee brings them in. The terms of reference you can read in the Premier's budget speech if you look at the provision of basic services for children. You just said provision of basic services. The committee will make recommendations on how encompassing basic services should be. That is a job for the committee which will include members from the independent school association and other groups — of course, school trustees.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I can't answer that until.... It's completely different. This is the first time any government has ever taken this step, and I think this has been received very well across the province.

The instructional unit. Actually, when you ask to change the number you're really just tinkering with the actual formula of the sums of money. The most important thing here is what the instructional unit value is, as you know. Just to change that is a tinkering process.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. But, you see, the school board, Mr. Member, has the right to set the size of classes. We simply give them the sum of money; they can adjust the size of classes. I am very pleased to say that the school boards of the province, since we have given this increased funding over the last three years, have moved in on decreasing in the elementary areas particularly, which I encouraged them to do, and I'm pleased to see they've done it.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Oh, I know, you were asking if we would extend the matter of appointment of local superintendents. I'm willing to talk to the BCTF and the school trustees on this matter now. As you say, since I came into office it was one of the first things we brought in — giving it to districts over 20,000. I'm willing to sit down with the teachers and the trustees and our own district superintendents, naturally, to discuss how this has been working. I'll also bring in the personnel who have been involved as local superintendents.

What is the future thrust? Our government is still committed to eventually bring down a further reduction. But I do agree with the Hon. Member;

[ Page 1853 ]

there are other areas that have to be looked at too. One thing I've always said is that the instructional skill of the teacher must go along with the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio. But we believe in continuing with further reductions.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask the Minister a couple of questions this evening. Under her Ministry in the Department of Education we have seen the deterioration of morale in the classrooms. We have seen the deterioration of morale of the teachers. We have seen the deterioration of the morale of the school trustees. We have seen the deterioration of the moral of the taxpayers.

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

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: This happens to be a non-confidence vote, and the reason this non-confidence vote is on the floor is because this Minister has done such a poor job in handling the educational system of this province. It has deteriorated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in reading a release from the Minister dated February 26, 1975, regarding the pupil-teacher ratio. The release said:

" 'The government's commitment to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in the province to 17 to 1 was made in good faith,' the Minister said. 'And this programme will be continued when economic conditions improve,' Education Minister Eileen Dailly told the delegates from the teachers' organizations in Victoria today." When economic conditions improve. In other words, this was just another one of her political promises that she has been unable to fulfil.

" 'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect the continuation of the programme when rampant inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years.' "

Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you, if this is the worst recession in years, how come the Premier can go out and spend $350 million on an ego trip to build an oil refinery in this province? Now which is more important — the Premier's ego and building an oil refinery or the education of the children?

The Minister is the one who made the promise to reduce the ratio, but now she hasn't got the money because the Premier is off on an ego trip.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well, I'll deal with that in a moment. But the Premier has got $350 million to build an oil refinery that won't create one single more job than if that same oil refinery was built by private money. But because of the Premier's big ego — and he wants to build this oil refinery plonk in the centre of Surrey, and he's going around buying up land like mad — that's why the Minister hasn't money to run her Department of Education, and that's why she can't fulfil her promise to reduce the ratio.

Why didn't you tell the school board representatives when they were here that this is why you haven't got the money? You talk about a recession. You'd never know there was a recession in British Columbia — not the way the Premier spends money. You'd never know there is a recession. Is that why we have all this empty office space in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, because of the recession? Is this why the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can go around the province renting practically every vacant building in the province? Is that a recession? Is there a recession on when that is happening?

Madam Minister, you have lost your touch. You've lost your touch with the Treasury Board. Everything else is priority now over education, and I thought you were going to see that education had priority in this province. Why, my gracious, even expensive furniture for Stewart McMorran in Prince George has a greater priority than education in this province these days.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Stacking chairs, yes, stacking chairs in the Consumer Services office in Prince George at $92 each. Yes, $92 apiece, Mr. Chairman, for stacking chairs.

Where are the priorities in this province? Is it education or is it stacking chairs, or is it furniture for Stewart McMorran's office, or is it oil refineries?

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that before this government came to power their great priority was education. What is it now? The priority now is airplanes, jet airplanes, while the children of this province go without a proper education and the Minister doesn't fulfil her promises. Airplanes have a greater priority, and jets for the Ministers to travel around in at great speed, faster than the speed of sound, Mr. Chairman. That's how they travel: faster than the speed of sound, while our children go

[ Page 1854 ]

without learning their A's and their B's and their C's. Now, Mr. Chairman, on top of all of this, we have to have a committee to study to see whether they are learning, whether they are getting their education or not.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be more important for the various departments of government to go around buying up all the private land in British Columbia than it is to educate our children. There's where the priorities of this government have gone — out the window. Oh, yes, out the window. Karl Marx says: "Buy up all the land and control the people. Buy up all the land, control the land and you control the people." That's where the priorities are, not in educating the children of this province.

I want to tell you that the morale in the classrooms of this province has deteriorated under this Minister.

I'd like the Minister to tell me how many children have been kicked out of school in the last 12 months in this province for disobedience. How many children have been kicked out of school for disobedience? How many suspended?

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. I'll answer the question for the Minister. Very, very few.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Very, very few. And I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why. It's because the teachers and the principals no longer dare suspend a child for disobedience.

So what do they do? They suspend them and don't put it on the record, Mr. Chairman. That's what's happening in the schools today, because the Minister of Education has said it's a black mark against the teacher and a black mark against the principal and a black mark against the school when children are suspended for disobedience. You're supposed to pat them on the head and make good boys and girls out of them, but don't suspend them for disobedience. It doesn't matter whether they pour ink on the floor or acid on the rug or abuse the teacher. Don't suspend them. That's the way this Minister is handling the obedience problem in this province.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the teachers in this province are frustrated, the principals of the schools are frustrated, the school trustees are frustrated, and the school counsellors are frustrated...

MR. LEWIS: And the Socreds are frustrated!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...because they have no way of bringing obedience to the classroom in this province, because of the decree that that Minister has brought down that to expel a student from school is a black mark against the school and a black mark against the teacher.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: That decree is all over British Columbia and you know it! You go out and talk to the people and get down out of your airplane.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is no decree regarding that whatsoever. You will have to bring it to me and show it to me. No such decree exists, and I can assure the House it does not.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll accept that it isn't emblazoned in black and white in the regulations that the Minister puts out, but the word filters down from the Minister, down through her hierarchy, down through to the school boards: "Don't suspend anybody in school for being disobedient because we'll know that you haven't the capacity or the capability as a school teacher to handle those disobedience problems." That's what's happening.

So what's happening now, Mr. Chairman? They're disobeying the rules. The children are still being suspended but they're not being reported. The Minister knows what's going on. She knows full well it's going on.

That's why the morale is so low in the classrooms of this province. The morale in the classrooms of this province is low because of the incompetence of that Minister — that's why.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): What about the morale of used-care salesmen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister made certain promises to school boards, and she made promises to the taxpayers and the Minister of Finance made promises to the taxpayers of this province. What happened to those promises? I know what happened to the taxpayers; I know what they're going to do in the next election, but what happened to those promises? Out the window just like all your other promises. Your priorities have changed. You'd rather build great monuments to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) than you would spend

[ Page 1855 ]

money on education. But when you were in opposition you had all the answers; oh, yes, you had all the answers.

MR. McCLELLAND: Vacant monuments.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vacant promises to reduce school taxes!

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

MR. PHILLIPS: What's happening this year? Up go the school taxes; up go all property taxes. One reason, Mr. Chairman, is there's less property owned in the hands of private individuals to pay the taxes; that's one reason. Up go the taxes! Away with the priorities.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, they know you in Fort St. John, too. I know what they call you up there in one of the schools and I won't repeat it here. Those young people in Fort St. John school at least had you tagged. You know what they called you. You didn't fool those kids in Fort St. John any when you went up there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "You pinko!"

MR. PHILLIPS: They didn't call you any pinko. They called you exactly what you were, Mr. Premier. You didn't fool those kids in Fort St. John; not one little bit you didn't — $350 million for a refinery while the kids of this province go without learning their A's and their B's and their C's.

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

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair.]

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

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the Premier — I'll give him credit for this — has finally realized that the Minister of Education is incapable and incompetent, and the way of easing her out is to cut off her money. That's how he's easing her out. She's lost her touch. She used to be able to twist that Premier right around her little finger, but now she's lost her touch.

AN HON. MEMBER: She uses the big finger.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, we've got two lady cabinet Ministers and two fire departments. You snap your fingers at either of those departments and do one little bit of criticism and out the door you go. Fired! Political revenge!

I'll tell you, I am glad I'm not working for those Ministers. I wouldn't last two minutes because I speak my own voice; I speak my own mind.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Try to confine your remarks to that amendment.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Members. Will you please, please address the Chair?

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Why don't you fire your Finance Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly glad to have the Premier finally recognize that he and his government are going down the tube. All the way! Going down the tube. He admitted it right here in this Legislature tonight. He is concerned about who is going to get the cabinet post when we are elected government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will tell you, he won't have anything to say about it. That's one thing for sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: His priorities have changed. Oh,

[ Page 1856 ]

what great humanists! Great humanists, worried about education. He is more concerned about his ego and building up $350,000 refineries and having airplanes...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to please confine his remarks to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am confining my remarks to the amendment. The amendment is regarding the incompetence of that Minister. She is incompetent because she is unable to sell Treasury Board on the priorities of education in this province. The priority of education has gone down the drain because of the Premier's different priorities.

When somebody points out to the Minister of Finance that taxpayers' money is being wasted in this province, what does he do? Is he concerned about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He smirks.

MR. PHILLIPS: He smirks and laughs about all the vacant office buildings in this province. He smirks and laughs about it!

When we talk about expenditures of $92 apiece for stacking chairs in the Department of Consumer Services, what does he do? He smirks and laughs. I'll tell you, that Premier has lost his priorities, his sense of humanity.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, financial geniuses, sure. Are we going to put schools on all the land of all the various departments? We've got the Department of Public Works, the Department of Economic Development, the B.C. Petroleum Corp., the B.C. Land Commission, the Department of Recreation and Conservation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Mines and the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia all buying land in British Columbia. That takes tax dollars, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: ...tax dollars that should be going to keep the promises of this government to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): The Minister of Mines isn't buying land.

MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't bought any land, no. But you sure killed the mining industry, Mr. Minister; you sure skilled the mining industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask the Hon. Members to please, first of all address the Chair and, secondly, to confine their remarks to the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea!

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lose your cool! (Laughter.) You're a nice, quiet Member. There is no need to shout in this committee. Don't follow your predecessor. Don't follow the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) who shouts continually.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the amendment!

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

MR. BENNETT: The Premier's laughing.

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

MR. BENNETT: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. BENNETT: The Premier is always laughing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you get in your jet and go off into the wild blue yonder? That's where your priority is.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Education says: "When rampant inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years Well, I would never know, Mr. Chairman, watching the spending of this government, that there was ever a recession in British Columbia. I have watched other governments bring

[ Page 1857 ]

down their budgets. They have tried to have a little grip on spending, but not this government. The only place they've got a grip on spending is when it comes to the Department of Education. Then they've got a grip on spending. Oh, yes, they can cut down on spending in the Department of Education while all the other Ministers go off and spend money at their whim. The Minister of Finance has no control whatsoever.

That wouldn't be half as bad, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Education would restore the morale in the classroom, restore the morale of the teachers of this province, of the school boards in this province, and of the pupils too! It has gone out the window, and that's why this Minister has a vote of non-confidence against her. The people of this province are concerned. They are concerned about the education of their children and they are concurred because this Minster has not fulfilled her promises, is not doing the job that she promised to do.

All we have had from this Minister is commissions and commissions and studies. Now we are going to have a study; we are going to have a task force to determine whether the children are being educated or not.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: If that Minister had the ability to make decisions and listen to the teachers in this province, she'd know what is going on. But no, she doesn't want to listen; she has to have some specialist run around and spend three or four months doing a survey. Then when they don't bring in the results that she wants, she'll fire them. That's right! Right on! She'll fire them.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It makes my heart bleed as a taxpayer to see what is happening to education in this province. It makes my heart bleed. I'm glad my sons are out of the public school system, practically, now because I'd be concerned. But I am concerned for the rest of the taxpayers in this province — I'm gravely concerned.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: You go build your oil refinery!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak rather briefly and very seriously about the problem of drug usage in the schools of British Columbia. Yesterday we were given a copy of a brochure given out by the Alcohol and Drug Commission entitled "A Professional Guide to Alcohol and Drug Information." In the leaf of this presentation was a study done by two individuals from the Narcotic Addiction Foundation of British Columbia about drug use among Vancouver secondary school students in 1970 to 1974.

That study showed that 71 per cent of the students had used alcohol, 64 per cent had used tobacco, 42 per cent had used cannabis, 22 per cent had used LSD, 9 per cent had used glue and solvents, 7 per cent had used amphetamines, 8 to 9 per cent had used tranquilizers, 10 per cent had used barbiturates and 1.5 to 2 per cent had used heroin. The people who conducted this study noted under "drug education" that about half as many students had been exposed to a drug education programme in 1974 as in 1970.

The key piece of information, Mr. Chairman, that I want to get across from this study is the statement from this report that, in general, exposure to a drug education programme was associated with a slightly higher incidence of drug use and poorer knowledge about drugs.

What this study had to say was that the drug education programme being presented to the students in British Columbia was doing harm. There is little doubt in my mind as to why the drug education programme is doing harm. It's because the information being prepared by our Alcohol and Drug Commission education department is not only wrong, it's an invitation to students to use drugs. Worse than that, we had just recently a roundup of drug pushers in British Columbia as a result of six months undercover work by police officials. Of the first 31 drug pushers taken into custody in that roundup, 29 were released on their own recognizance without bail.

We've got a situation, to put it in the most flattering terms, that is absolutely disgraceful in this province. On the one hand we have drug pushers being identified, arrested and then released to carry on their trade among drug users on the street and drug users and pushers among our high school population in British Columbia. We've got an, education programme being promoted by the Alcohol and Drug Commission, funded by the provincial government, supplied to our schools, which is incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Member to please relate his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of this Minister and speak to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I am. I want the drugs out of our schools in British Columbia. I want the people who are pushing those drugs removed

[ Page 1858 ]

from society and removed from any exposure to the youngsters of this province, who not only do not know better but are given false information by the Government of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I travelled down to Ottawa to present information to the Senate committee considering a bill to reduce penalties for cannabis use. The principal point I wished to make in this trip to Ottawa was that the young people of our province and Canada were being victimized by false information being presented to them by officials supported by government into schools supported by the government — being supported by interpretation of laws and administration of laws that worked to the advantage of those profiting from the drug trade. The information I presented to the Senate committee was not essentially different in its content to information presented to the United States Senate in its hearings conducted into drug abuse in May of 1974.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, order, please. As interesting as the remarks may seem, I would please ask you to relate and confine your speech and your remarks to the amendment and to the motion before this House.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...and that I was going to speak seriously. I wanted to speak on the subject of education. I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your remarks relate more to the jurisdiction of the Minister of another department, I'm asking you at this time to please confine your remarks to the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this booklet, "A Professional Guide to Alcohol and Drug Information," is being supplied to counsellors in the schools of British Columbia. This is the basis of information being presented to our secondary school students. When this information is presented, a study conducted among Vancouver school students shows that it encourages drug use.

Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking not just to the Minister, but to the parents of British Columbia. I'm saying to them that they are being let down by the Minister of Education. They are being let down by officials of the provincial government, being paid for by their taxes. The end result of this is that inaccurate information encouraging the use of drugs is being presented to their children. I say to this parliament, to the national government and to the people of Canada that something is dreadfully wrong when it is impossible to appear before the Senate committee, as I did, and have that information transmitted to the people of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, the hearing that I appeared before in the Senate was taped in parliament, but was screened out by the CBC in Toronto and was not presented to the people of Canada. I stress this only to illustrate that information telling the truth about drugs, when that information is unwelcome, is not transmitted to the students and not transmitted to the parents. Because of this, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education has a particularly important duty. She must categorically reject what is presented in this booklet.

Mr. Chairman, I said that I wished to speak briefly. I want to remind the Minister that at one time I offered the services of our particular laboratory to draw up educational materials for the schools, because we're engaged in doing basic research in this field, and because of this we have to have knowledge of the current scientific literature.

Speaking of cannabis as one example, because the Member asked about this, the hearings before the United States Senate last May included testimony by a Nobel prize winner, who had previously published in the scientific literature papers that we, like many other scientific groups, were familiar with, indicating that a single dose of cannabis takes more than a week to excrete. It's not like alcohol where what's here today is gone tomorrow. It collects in the fatty tissues in the brain and is there to continue its effects on a long-term basis. People who think that they are free of cannabis if they smoke up occasionally in a school are deluding themselves. It's retained in the tissues on a long-term basis.

There's nothing about this kind of thing in the chapter on cannabis in this particular publication. In fact, nothing....

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it does...improves sex, despite the fact that scientific evidence is in the literature produced before the senate committee indicating exactly the opposite.

There's nothing in this brochure directing you toward the literature, again presented before the U.S. Senate committee, indicating that intellectual performance deteriorates and that brain damage can occur. These are the scientific facts presented in the literature first before the U.S. Senate committee. I was pleased to do it before our U.S. Senate in Canada. Can you find it in this document?

Interjections.

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. McGEER: No sir, you can't find it in this document. You can't find anything damaging about drugs — not even heroin — in this useless piece of garbage. But at the same time we have presented here a report, done in British Columbia, indicating an alarming use of drugs in our schools, showing that drug use is on the increase and that people who have been exposed to this government's education programme are more likely to use drugs than if they haven't been exposed.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) points out that I said the U.S. Senate in Canada. It was produced first of all before the U.S. Senate and secondly before our own Canadian Senate.

These matters are on the official record, but it's been very difficult to communicate it to the people of Canada, and we find, in looking at what goes forward to the school counsellors in British Columbia, precisely the opposite to the truth.

I look with horrow at the amount of money we're spending on the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission. The amounts of money that are being wasted....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to be more pointed in relating his remarks to the Minister of Education's vote, and particularly this amendment.

MR. McGEER: There's $192,716 to education, that kind of thing. Counter-productive. False information doing damage. Now who's going to bring this kind of thing under control? Who's going to tell the truth to the students? Who's going to reassure the parents, who unfortunately already know the truth because they can see the damage being done to the youngsters as soon as they commence the use of drugs. Yet the youngsters go to the schools. They don't need to believe their parents; they can believe what's taught to them. They don't need to believe the truth because they get lies at school. And where's the origin of all of this? The origin is in our B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission.

What could be worse? What could be more warping and corrupting to the coming generation of British Columbians than to give them falsely reassuring information about the use of drugs, subsidized with the taxpayers' money? I just find it unbelievable. I don't want to take up a lot of time of the House, but I think the public is entitled to know the truth.

I think the Minister is obliged to commence a programme of telling the truth in our schools, letting the students know what it is like. Tell them the truth. Why tell them lies about drugs? Why do we need to do that? Why do we need to spend the taxpayers' money on this kind of thing?

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister to call all of those books back. Condemn the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Ask the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to put these people in jail, and for heaven's sake clean up our schools.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that I have not approved that book. As Minister of Education, as I have not seen the book, I do not intend to give my endorsation of that book and its distribution until I have had an opportunity, with my officials, to read it.

My understanding is that it is a teachers' or a counsellors' guide. I am still trying to track down whether it has been sent out officially to the counsellors. I want to inform you that the route that has been agreed to is only that it should come before me, as Minister, for endorsation before anything is put in the schools, and that is what I will be doing. I will be studying the book and I'll certainly be glad to report to the House further.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I was very interested in the remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) concerning drugs in the schools and the proliferation of drugs throughout British Columbia.

I would like to remind that Member, Mr. Chairman, that the highest percentage of drug users in Canada is right in the greater Vancouver area. It is a very difficult thing to control because they get their drugs from the United States, and they get their drugs from the Far East. They come in through British Columbia. They come in through Vancouver, through that port, and as a result the problem has been here for a long, long time, but during the last few years it has increased tremendously. It is not because of the education system that it is increasing in the schools; it is because it is very, very difficult to control federally and it is very difficult to control provincially.

The Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) department has set up a programme called CLEU in which they are trying to do something about controlling the proliferation of drugs. But also let me say that there are educational programmes going on right now in our educational system that are trying to do something about lessening the use of alcoholism and of drugs. From this very report that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) mentioned is a statement I don't think he read. Let me read from it.

This report is to Hon. Norman Levi, Minister of Human Resources, by Irene Peters, who is a commissioner of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. She herself is a native Indian, and in her report she says:

[ Page 1860 ]

"The native Indian education training programme, which has been set up across British Columbia, has 10 women enrolled in the Williams Lake centre. I spoke with these women, who all stressed the fact that alcohol had affected their lives personally, or the lives on their reserves. They all realize that this education programme is an opportunity to begin changing life on the reserve when they return home to commence their teaching careers.

"This on-the-job training is one excellent way of wakening the people to the fact that there are alternative ways of solving problems other than by alcohol. I was approached by the National Health and Welfare to take part in a seminar which was held at Williams Lake for the 14 native women who received a three-week course on family health aides. These women are now working out of their various reserves, and I am sure part of their work will encompass alcohol and the human body.

"Alcohol remains the No. 1 health problem amont the Indians."

That is only one aspect. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that another aspect is the fact that very often it is people who haven't got a proper background of nutrition who turn to drugs and alcohol. If they haven't got a good nutritional background, if they haven't got space for recreation, then they turn to something else, and usually it happens to be drugs and alcohol.

We have good home economics programmes in our schools, but some are much superior to others. In Vancouver, for instance, most of the secondary schools and quite a number of the primary and elementary schools have cafeterias.

Some of these cafeterias in some schools are run by an agency that brings the food in. It's a catering service from outside and they bring in soft drinks and things that are put into slot machines so that the students can buy just about whatever they want. In other schools the cafeteria is run by the school, mainly by the students.

Mrs. Margaret Murphy, who is the director of home economics in Vancouver had this to say on April 5 in The Vancouver Sun:

"A teacher in a lower socio-economic-level school says that students of families on welfare spend more money on the machines" — that is, on pop machines and things of that kind — "than they would consider spending at lunch. In some cafeterias, pop, chocolate bar, chips and Cheezies vending machines stand right inside the entrance to the door while the milk machines stand at the far end of the room. In this atmosphere, even if the student has brought lunch, he will eat something of it, throw out the rest and get something from the machines. Garbage disposals are frequently the recipients of half-eaten sandwiches and fruit.

"In the schools' student-operated cafeterias where vending machines have been removed, the sale of white milk, which is subsidized by the school board, has shot up impressively. Kitsilano, David Thompson, Templeton and Charles Tupper Secondary Schools have student cafeteria programmes. Each day they offer a nutritionally balanced hot meal for a low price.

"One of the teachers, Mrs. Sawyer, from Templeton, said that before the school board started to subsidize white milk, more than 250 cartons of chocolate milk were sold each day compared with 50 cartons of 2 per cent white milk. However, since the subsidy has started, the numbers have now completely reversed."

I'm very happy each time I stand up to be able to support this Minister because she listens to what is happening in the schools. She has gone around to see what's happening in the schools; she has listened to what suggestions have been made to her. There are tremendous innovations going on in the schools. Some of these people who are speaking against them should only go in and see for themselves.

However, I would like to stress the fact that, particularly in areas where people are on low incomes, I do think something must be done to provide some sort of a milk subsidy. I would hope that the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture would get together with the Department of Education to try to subsidize milk for school children right throughout British Columbia.

What Vancouver is actually doing is providing a 5-cent subsidy on each half pint of milk so that schools that want to participate in the programme can do so and can get half a pint of milk for 10 cents. I realize that during the last 13 years, from about 1962 till now, the price of milk has doubled. Actually, the price of milk hasn't gone up nearly as rapidly as has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just mention to the Hon. Member that we are considering the amendment of support or criticism of the Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to the amendment.

MRS. WEBSTER: This is definitely in relation to this because I'm trying to make this assembly see that some of these things are necessary. If other Members can talk about cannabis and other things in the schools, surely we can talk about better nutrition in the schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[ Page 1861 ]

MRS. WEBSTER: A provincial subsidy, if it was shared with school boards, would not necessarily mean such an awful lot to the provincial government or to individual school boards. If such a thing could be arranged, it would be possible for students to get milk at 5 cents for a half pint.

Mr. Chairman, there are about 500,000 student going to schools in British Columbia. About 90 per cent attendance is more or less the standard, regular attendance. This shouldn't be too much of an expense either to the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Education. I am sure that something could be arranged along this line if the Ministers could get together for this.

Milk is one of the most important things in children's diet. Teenagers require about a quart of milk a day to get the proper amount of calcium.

Elementary children require a pint. That means they would get approximately one-half to one-third of their daily requirement of calcium by getting their half-pint of milk a day.

I hope the Minister will give this consideration, and I certainly will not support the amendment.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I was very happy to hear the Minister say that she hasn't approved this book that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was talking about.

I must remind the Chairman that this book is designed to be used in the schools of British Columbia. But since the Minister said she knew nothing about this book and had not approved it, it only proves the need for the non-confidence motion we have on the floor of this House today. The Minister should know about this book before it gets used in the schools of British Columbia. It is being offered for use in the schools of British Columbia right now.

Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the introduction in this book. It says: "It is a series designed to increase teachers' knowledge and confidence in the area of drug abuse." But it also says, and this is probably the most critical part of this introduction: "It is hoped that with the help of this information contained in this book teachers will be able to respond accurately and sensitively to student challenges and questions on drug use." Accurately and sensitively to the questions that students put about drug use.

Well, how do we respond accurately and sensitively? I'd just like to flip through this book for a moment. We tell the students that if they use marijuana, they can expect certain changes in their attitudes and in their behaviour, and those changes will include hilarity, increased flow of ideas, enrichment of sensory experience, heightened imagination and feelings of enhanced creativity and spontaneity. There is usually, but not always, an increase in appetite or enjoyment of food, better sex.

This book is designed to help teachers respond accurately and sensitively. It then goes on to say that adverse reactions to cannabis use are rare. Yet we heard the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey tell us that that's a stupid and incorrect statement, because we know very well that adverse reactions to cannabis are not rare, and all scientific evidence shows us now that it can be very adverse and very significant in the changes of mood that take place.

It also goes on to tell us that "research has said that it's impossible to assess the safety implications of cannabis intoxication on driving." My God! The government itself financed a research project at UBC on the effects of cannabis intoxication on driving, and it certainly wasn't a wishy-washy result that came out. It said clearly: "Cannabis intoxication affects driving the, same way that alcohol intoxication does." At UBC, financed by this government...and yet this report by this government tells us that there is no research.

I'd like to know how this book could ever get into this form, this far, with all the money that was spent on it, without the Education Minister knowing about it. The Human Resources Department, when we phoned them about it, knew nothing about it. The British Columbia School Trustees Association knows nothing about it. The British Columbia Teachers Federation knows nothing about it. Nobody knows anything about this book except the stupid people who prepared it and are now foisting it on the young people of this province. Do you know what it says about heroin in this book?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that the drug commission is not under the administrative responsibilities of this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this book is meant to be used in the schools of British Columbia. It's being offered to the teachers and counsellors in the schools of British Columbia, and we're talking....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): But it's not accepted.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you telling us that you're rejecting this booklet? Is it official government policy that this book is rejected?

MR. GARDOM: Yes or no?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes or no is right. Don't give us that stuff. The thing is being offered to the students of British Columbia as a guide for the

[ Page 1862 ]

teachers to respond accurately and sensitively to the questions about drug abuse.

Do you know what it says about heroin? It says:

"The treatment programmes which attempt to get heroin-dependent persons to abstain completely have had very poor success rates. In fact, where abstinence has been achieved, it may simply be replaced by another dependence such as alcoholism, excessive eating, or dependence upon a therapeutic community."

What would you sooner have your child doing: eating too much or popping heroin? What a stupid statement by a department of government! What a stupid statement!

MR. GARDOM: Dangerous!

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and dangerous. Most dangerous to the future lives of many of our youngsters.

It also goes on to say that maintenance programmes appear the most promising of current approaches to the problem of opiate dependence. Are maintenance programmes a policy of this government? I can recall asking the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) the other day whether that was a policy. Is heroin maintenance a policy of this government? Sounds like Peter Stein to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to be more specific in relating this to the administrative responsibility of this Minister.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that this Minister should know all about this book, and because she knows nothing about it then she's incompetent in her job and that's why we have a non-confidence motion before this House today. She knew enough to fire all her research assistants, but certainly this kind of research which is foisted on the people of British Columbia gets short shrift from the Minister.

It is an educational problem. It's one that's been presented to the people, to the educationists in this...and do you know what? Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister doesn't know this. There are eight sections in this book — nine, actually, but one of them is miscellaneous and there's nothing in it.

MR. BENNETT: Must be the Minister Without Portfolio.

MR. McClelland: Right on. There are eight sections in this book, Mr. Chairman, and seven of those eight sections were prepared by the Drug and Alcohol Commission of Alberta, and just given to this government — or stolen, or whatever it is that they do with them. They weren't even prepared by this government but by Alberta, where there is no drug problem!

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, come on.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's no drug problem to speak of in Alberta and you know it. I wish you'd go back to Alberta; it's be better for the people of British Columbia if you got out of this province, I'll tell you that.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): That's where all B.C.'s going now!

MR. McCLELLAND: The only part of this programme that was prepared by the Alcohol and Drug Commission of British Columbia is the section called "Drug Laws," and mostly it just repeats what the drug laws are in this country, except that it is, in my opinion, again, an invitation to drug use. This book should be called "A Guide to a Better High." It's a shocking, scurrilous, dangerous document; and for that Minister not to know what's going on is absolutely incredible and incompetent. It isn't much wonder that there is a non-confidence motion against that Minister if that's the way she runs her department.

I'd like to ask where the controls are in this government. Can an Alcohol and Drug Commission have free rein to put anything it wants in the schools of British Columbia? It's a commission headed by a man who is soft on drugs and who has gone into the schools in Vancouver and told those schools that marijuana should be legalized — Peter Stein. Does he have free rein to do anything he wants in this province? Does the Human Resources Minister have the right to put anything he wants into the schools, over the objections or non-objections or the ignorance of the Minister of Education? That's the way it seems, Mr. Chairman.

If this programme is supposed to be an educational programme, like every other programme that that Minister had advanced it has failed. It is not an educational programme, Mr. Chairman. There is no information given in this book about what to do once you recognize that a child is on drugs or how to handle a child on drugs. There's nothing in this book. There is no guide to any agencies from which some help can be received for youngsters — no guide whatsoever!

MR. BENNETT: Shocking!

MR. McCLELLAND: There is very little mentioned in this book as to prevention or education or any other sources of education that could be influential to students. It's a guide of misinformation

[ Page 1863 ]

and lies. As I said before, it's a distortion, and it's an invitation, in fact, to drug use. I hope that the Minister will go home tonight — and if she doesn't have a copy of this book I'd be glad to lend her mine — and read it, and weep with the rest of us who have read it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say right now that I have no hesitation in supporting this Minister. I think we've experienced a common type of tirade by the opposition, tonight - irresponsible.

I would like to just touch on the Home and School Federation in regard to family life, and what they have to say about it.

MR. FRASER: Why don't you go and fix that road that fell out? A road fell out in your riding!

MR. LEWIS: There's lots more than that fell out when the Social Credit went out, and I hope they never come back in. I'll tell you that.

Do you know the Home and School Federation feels that the Minister of Education is doing such a good job in this province? That is the reason why their membership has dropped off in this province.

For the Member for South Peace River to stand up in this House and say that the teachers and the students and the taxpayers are all disenchanted with this Minister is absolutely false, They haven't travelled around this province and listened.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've travelled....

MR. LEWIS: All you've done is travel around this province, spreading hate, vilifying, and lying!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEWIS: You're just like your friend, Grace McCarthy, moving around, talking about loaded guns....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member for Shuswap to withdraw the imputation that an Hon. Member of this House has been telling lies.

MR. LEWIS: I haven't heard the Hon. Member lie in this House, but he has lied all over this province.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There is no point of order required. I am asking the Hon. Member for Shuswap to withdraw any imputation against another Hon. Member of this House.

MR. LEWIS: I withdraw. I withdraw, but what he is saying is certainly questionable, I'll tell you that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll accept the withdrawal of the Hon. Member. But I think it would be more appropriate, if he doesn't agree with the remarks or if he doesn't think they are true, that he would make some remarks such as the remarks are in error or the comments are in error, rather than saying he is lying or deliberately lying.

MR. LEWIS: I think it is certainly appropriate that that group at the far end is trying to meld in with the Liberals. They say birds of a feather fly together. Down there I think we have the seagulls and the vultures. For them to try to spread around this province the type of hate, the false statements, the innuendoes....

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about that Egg Marketing Board. Go ahead!

MR. LEWIS: Don't you start talking! You're not even a part of them!

MR. FRASER: Go ahead.

MR. LEWIS: You're not even part of them. Which cabinet post would they even offer you, eh?

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Who are they offering the Minister of Education's post, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the amendment, please?

MR. LEWIS: Are you offering the Minister of Education's post to that absent-minded Member there?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest you get Pat McGeer as your Minister of Education. He is the absent-minded professor.

Interjections.

[ Page 1864 ]

MR. LEWIS: He only remembers to come to this House about 10 per cent of the time.

I would like to read you a little statement by the Home and School Federation. It says: "Outgoing president Kathryn Schaun, who has served for five years, said later she thought federation membership is declining because of an NDP open-door education policy." That is the type of reaction that we are getting from the public out there, not from you bunch of scary-hairy people!

" 'The local associations don't really need us anymore,' she said. 'I think that's a good thing. They, of course, are concerned with their own problems, and all they have to do now is to write to the Minister of Education and she responds to all matters, no matter how trivial.' "No matter how trivial! She'll even listen to complaints about the Socreds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the Egg Marketing Board. We'd like to hear a little more about that.

MR. LEWIS: Well, we should have you there. You are a rotten egg, I'll tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair did not hear the remark. Would the Hon. Member continue unless someone wishes to repeat it?

MR. LEWIS: The Member for North Okanagan went into a tirade on family education. I think it was most irresponsible. It was the same type of programme and same type of things that Grace McCarthy has been going around this province saying, the same type of thing: a fear campaign. Use the kids as a pawn; try to get everybody worked up regardless of what the outcome is. You didn't even take a look at the circular that was sent around this province by the Minister. You didn't even read it.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I'll tell you, I've got more grit than you have, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got more gall too.

MR. LEWIS: This is what the Minister sent around to all school boards in this province, and all teachers were aware of what was in it.

MRS. JORDAN: What was the date on it?

MR. LEWIS: March, 1973. You're a long way behind times.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about the school taxes.

MR. LEWIS: It said:

"It is emphasized that in the rationale for school programmes, there is no thought of contradicting or interfering with parental rights or responsibilities. The intention is to simply allow the schools to supplement, not supplant, the education parents wish to give their children. Nor is it envisaged that school programmes would try to impose a state-determined set of values or code of behaviour. The only concern is that of assisting in implementing the age-old educational objective, 'Know thyself.'

Interjections.

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

MR. LEWIS: I have no problem in defending any policies which this Minister of Education has brought forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. LEWIS: Could you defend old smothers Brothers, eh?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: You're gonna have to defend him pretty quick.

MR. LEWIS:

"At the elementary school level a resource guide is being prepared for general distribution. This guide will include further references to the kinds of objectives deemed appropriate at this level, as well as ideas and suggestions as to the kinds of topics or questions concerning personal growth and family living likely to arise at different age levels. Also included are suggestions for using the teachable moment and some teaching materials which have been found helpful. This resource guide should not be regarded as a set of courses to be covered; nor is it intended to be prescriptive, as the term implies. It is simply a resource which teachers may use.

"At the secondary level, it is envisaged that local authorities, at their discretion, will give consideration to the development of local programmes deemed appropriate to the needs of pupils and the desires of the community."

Now if that isn't plain in regard to what the

[ Page 1865 ]

Minister was asking — she was asking that the community and the parents and the school boards work together.

"Such programmes may be offered on a trial basis and are subject to the approval of the board of school trustees and the Department of Education. A number of districts have already implemented such programmes.

"A set of provincial guidelines will be developed based upon the advice and experience of local schools and district authorities. In the meantime, the Department of Education offers the following recommendations and suggestions for consideration: public schools are the agent of the community and it follows from this that what they do in this field should have the approval of the board of school trustees as a representative of the community.

"Parents have both rights and responsibilities which must be respected. Any proposed studies in this field must involve consultation with parents and a readiness to take particular action in response to parents' advice and requests affecting the programme generally or participation of their children."

MR. GARDOM: Are you quoting?

MR. LEWIS: This is a circular that was sent out by the Minister of Education Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member continues, I would appreciate it if Hon. Members do have a point of order, that they stand in their place and make a point of order in the proper manner rather than shouting at the Chair.

MR. LEWIS: I'm trying to clear up the false information that the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) gave this House — the false information.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, would the Member clarify whether that document is signed by the Minister of Education or Mr. Meredith?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I just want to keep the record straight, Mr. Chairman. The Member was accusing me of falsehoods....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is not a point of order. I would. ask the Hon. Member for Shuswap to continue.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"It is essential that there be a clear and precise explanation of what is being proposed, why, or for what purpose, and how it will be carried out. If is recommended that parents be involved at this stage" — that parents are to be involved.

"Disagreement and criticism of studies in this field arise from two sources: (1) misunderstanding" — and that's what our friend from North Okanagan was trying to spread around, misunderstanding — "or misinterpretation of what is proposed, and (2) failure to recognize or accept the fact that the nature of public school imposes limitations on what it can and should teach in a compulsory, group-organized educational system. Considering the nature of the topics or content in relation to pupils, it should be recognized that maturity, background, and family attitudes will differ. While it may be possible to identify common needs, or common learning for a given group, there will be the need to recognize and make provisions for differences. It is suggested that thought be given to including an individualized instruction component in dealing with some aspects. This may simply involve ensuring that an individual pupil can obtain an answer to a personal question from a reliable individual in private.

"Some proposed programmes, in terms of time and detail, appear to have over-emphasized the study of what is referred to as the sexuality of the individual." This is exactly what the Minister said. "It is recommended that in line with the philosophy of studying personal and family life, consideration be given to a total concept of family life, including topics or problems in the social life and the economic life of the individual in the family.

"Past experience indicates that in organizing the content of a proposed programme, there is need to avoid undue repetition and an overemphasis of group discussion. The cyclical theory of organizing content according to

[ Page 1866 ]

maturity levels should not be carried to extremes. The effectiveness of studies in this field......"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would ask the Hon. Members not to make such a racket because otherwise I can't determine whether the Hon. Member is in order when he is speaking. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS:

"Teachers should not be assigned to this work unless they wish to be and are considered knowledgeable and capable of doing it. Resource persons should not be called upon to teach simply because they happen to have a particular expertise. Both teachers and school personnel, and resource persons need to plan jointly. And the latter must be clear as to what is expected and how it may be best provided. Consideration should be given to in-service educational programmes and to procedures which permit an integrated interdisciplinary approach to teaching.

"There are many learning material books, films, pamphlets on the market and many of them have been produced in accordance with particular objectives, philosophy and value systems. It is strongly recommended that this be identified and assessed in terms of the philosophy underlying the programme. Otherwise, such material may well defeat or distort the programme.

"Considerable professional judgment and discretion is needed considering the fact that what is done in schools is generally judged as having the sanction and acceptability of an educational authority. It is recommended that programmes be subject to regular professional evaluation and reports."

Now if that isn't clear enough that the Minister wished a programme to be developed that was acceptable to the parents, to the teachers, to the students and to the trustees, I don't know how much more plain it could be.

MR. FRASER: The Minister never signed that.

MR. LEWIS: I would suggest that you get a copy of that. Each one of you can read it before you stand up in this House and make the type of representation that the Member for North Okanagan made.

MR. FRASER: I want to tell you that we talk to the people; we don't read documents from the civil service.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I would also challenge the Member for North Okanagan to prove to me where there was a meeting in my riding with 800 people in attendance in regard to this programme.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I understood that there were about 70 or 80. That's a long way from 800 people.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: This is the type of thing. They feel that they can go around this province and spread muck and guck and get away with it. Well, they can't. They can't do it.

I spent five days in my riding....

MR. BENNETT: Is that all?

MR. LEWIS: The response I got from my riding was...

MRS. JORDAN: Why weren't you in the House?

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: ...that the opposition is negative; they're irresponsible. "We don't want them even if they get together. We don't want them if they get together and we don't want them separate." You go back out and take a reading, my friends; go back and take a reading. They're fed up with your talk about everybody packing six-guns in this province, about the Minister of Education bringing in programmes to....

MR. PHILLIPS: You won't be back.

MR. LEWIS: I'll be back, my friend. I'll be back, my friend.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member speak to the Chair and to the amendment, please?

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually like that Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips), but I wish that he would get back on the ground and deal with things factually. If he thinks that the people are fed up with this Minister of Education, he's got another thought coming.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know it. I don't think it; I know it.

[ Page 1867 ]

MR. LEWIS: The past Minister of Education was called Brothers. It should have been "Smothers Brothers" because he smothered every bit of education in this province. (Laughter.) This Minister is going a fine job in correcting many of the things that you did: the lack of school rooms, the lack of gyms, no kindergartens; the list goes on and on. Special programmes in the schools....

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: I'd like to take a minute and hang my head in shame for you. (Laughter.) I would hope that you will repent, or you never will become a government again in this province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Minister's defence over there is really defensive tonight. The Member who just took his place talked about muck and guck. I can recall a sad time in this House when they had Cocke and Foulkes, another vaudeville team.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister as much as admitted that she knew nothing about this book, "A Professional Guide to Alcohol and Drug Information." I'd like to ask her if she could tell this House whether or not she knows about some of the other programmes that the Alcohol and Drug Commission is carrying on under the heading of school programmes. Maybe there are more things we should know about — that the Minister should know about. I'd like to repeat my offer, Madam Minister. If you don't have this, I'll lend it to you overnight, because I know it's very important that you read it quickly before it gets too far.

The following developments have taken place, according to the second report of the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission. A professional kit has been developed — that's this infamous bunch of garbage — to provide up-to-date, accurate information about alcohol, drugs and related issues to teachers and counsellors. Well, this up-to-date information happens to be several years old and is hardly up-to-date.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just like the Gestapo.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it has everything to do with the.... It is the Stein report.

The second thing the report tells us about is that the person responsible for schools, occasionally with other staff members, has initiated and/or participated in seminars and workshops for counsellors and teachers. Does the Minister know about these seminars and workshops that are going on apparently in the schools right now? The Minister indicated that this kit is not yet required subject matter for the counsellors. But the report tells us that these seminars and workshops are going on right now. Are they using materials such as are in this kit to conduct those seminars and workshops? Are they, in fact, going into our schools?

Is Peter Stein sending people into our schools to promote drug use, marijuana use? That's what it would seem like. No wonder the morale is so low in our schools. No wonder there is a non-confidence motion against this Minister.

The person from the Alcohol and Drug Commission is apparently going into our schools, providing information on chemical dependency and counselling techniques, telling our teachers how to counsel young people in the use of drugs, as well as covering broader issues such as family life. Is it the responsibility, Mr. Chairman, of the members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission to impose those family life programmes that that Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) was just talking about? Does the Member for Shuswap know that those family life programmes are being initiated in the schools by people from the Alcohol and Drug Commission who are soft on drugs. Does he know that?

Mr. Chairman, it says in this report that those family life programmes are being discussed by members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission; also life skills programmes in Burnaby, North Vancouver, West Vancouver, Kelowna, Kamloops and Victoria. Now what could be clearer than that? Is that the responsibility of a group of people who are soft on drugs? Not on your life!

"Staff members of the B.C. Alcohol and Drug Commission have made numerous presentations and held seminars on drugs, alcohol and related issues for various parent groups." Does the Minister approve those courses and seminars, or does she even know about them? I'll bet she's never even heard about them until I mentioned them tonight.

A learning-by-doing course for elementary school children...

MRS. JORDAN: Right on!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...involving training in the use of the scientific method of pharmacological concepts, together with the development of human relation skills in conjunction with the authors, Dr. Belword and Mrs. Bethel, has been established."

Members of the Alcohol and Drug Commission are going into the elementary schools. Are they taking this professional kit with them and spreading the kind of garbage that is in this kit? Does the Minister know what they are doing in the elementary schools?

Mr. Chairman, I'll bet she hasn't a clue what they are doing in the elementary schools either. It is in the report.

"A 35-page parent study group manual has been printed and is being provided free of charge to interested parent groups around the province. Liaison

[ Page 1868 ]

with the local health units and school districts has been established in the area of family life education in Courtenay." At least in one part of British Columbia, apparently, they've gone to the school trustees. But they certainly haven't gone to the school trustees anywhere else in B.C. It doesn't say whether the people in Courtenay kicked them out or not. I hope they did.

"The staff members are involved in ongoing evaluation of available curricula, programmes and other resources in the area of drug education."

Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister knows it or not, this group of people are infiltrating the schools of this province and they are directly taking part in the curriculum development of the schools of this province. It is time that Minister found out what is going on. If she doesn't if she isn't instrumental in convincing the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) to fire Peter Stein and his pitiful little group, then she has a lot of shame to rest on her shoulders, and it is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is a non-confidence motion over this Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the Hon. Member appreciates the fact that it is improper, during estimates, to ask one Minister to advise another Minister about anything. In each situation you should question the Minister in turn.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order. May I ask leave to move the order of second reading be discharged on Bill 43 and propose the withdrawal of 42, as mentioned in the afternoon sitting?

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to know what this is about before I put anything.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.