[ Page 1727 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply:

Department of Education estimates.

On vote 39.

Mrs. Dailly — 1728

Mr. Levi — 1729

Mr. Wallace — 1730

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1732

Mr. Nicolson — 1734

Mr. Kahl — 1736

Mr. Lea — 1740

Mr. Macdonald — 1741

Mr. Rogers — 1742

Mr. Barber — 1742

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1742

Mr. Cocke — 1745

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1749

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today 15 students from my home community of Texada Island, along with their principal, Mr. Michaels, and their teacher, Mr. Ross. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): In the galleries today I'd like to draw your attention to the Chairman of the Bank of Tokyo, Mr. S. Hara. Mr. Hara was a very distinguished Finance minister in Japan during the years of 1934-1962. He's here to visit British Columbia, along with his local representative from Vancouver, Mr. Yamada. Mr. Hara is also a very enthusiastic jogger, as you can tell by taking one good look at him. Would the members please welcome them?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): We have in the gallery this morning a personal friend, a co-ordinator for the National Film Board and visitor from Vancouver — and by way of a clever plug, the presenter of a film this evening at 8 o'clock in the Newcombe Auditorium, entitled "A sense of Place." We'll be discussing the UN Habitat conference and settlements generally throughout the world. That's 8 o'clock this evening in the Newcombe Auditorium (laughter), presented by our guest this morning, Miss Leslie Adams of the National Film Board.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): We have with us in the gallery this morning Mr. and Mrs. Bob Matthews from the great constituency of Omineca. Mr. Matthews is the clerk-treasurer for the municipality of Houston. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I'm a day late with my introduction. (Laughter.) I'm sorry about that and I hope that the House will indulge, but I was very disappointed that a most celebrated constituent of mine was in attendance yesterday and I overlooked his presence. I understand that Mr. Alex DiCimbriani was in attendance. I must say that over the years I've known Mr. DiCimbriani he, unfortunately, has been faced with considerable adverse publicity, but I must say, in all respect, that my constituents are treated with equal concern and I'm very sorry for him because we all have our problems throughout life.

While he was not recognized...at least no one admitted having known him from the Social Credit Party, and I can tell you he's no friend of mine personally because he has campaigned very hard against me over the years. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that Mr. DiCimbriani, about 10 years ago donated money to the community. He was a very....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'm just introducing the man

MR. SPEAKER: You are introducing someone who obviously is not here and....

MR. BARNES: Well, let me point out....

MR. SPEAKER: ...in that case I'd ask you to conclude the introduction very quickly.

MR. BARNES: I will be very brief, thank you. But several years ago when I was a social worker, Mr. DiCimbriani was starting up his Erkindale apartments in the West End and he used to contribute considerable supplies to the neighbourhood centre — and that was a very good deed on his part, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, this is not the time for a speech.

MR. BARNES: I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, please indulge for just one more second, because I think it should be remembered that there are two sides of every story. This man with all of the problems he's faced with should be given credit where credit is due because we needed help at the time and he did provide it. Many kids used to work.... He used to provide services for them and funds and help in their programmes. I just want to say that he's not a supporter, never has been and I'm sure never will be, but justice should be given where it's due. I'm sorry that the government didn't see fit to at least recognize their supporter when he was here yesterday.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In the buildings today and hopefully in the gallery later this morning is a group of students from the Vermilion Forks Elementary School in Princeton, together with their teachers and chaperons. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 1728 ]

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have a number of questions for the Minister of Education. I know there are a number of other members in the opposition who also have a number to discuss with him, and we hope to get some clarification of some concerns we have which have developed by some recent actions of the minister.

The first point in question which I want to bring to the minister's attention this morning is my concern and the concern of others in the educational community and may I say particularly, in the seafaring community, with the proliferation of studies which we suddenly find coming forward from the Department of Education. I recall that when the NDP was in office I think the minister who was then in opposition was rather a vocal critic of what he considered were perhaps useless studies. Now I wish to point out to the minister that I consider two studies which he has recently initiated as somewhat — in fact absolutely — unnecessary.

The first one I want to comment on is the press release with reference to another re-examination of a marine college for British Columbia. Now it is rather a sad history for the seafaring industry of this province that governments, including the NDP to some degree, have moved very slowly on the development of this very vital college for British Columbia. I recall when I first came into office that the minister who preceded me had announced that the government of that time was committed to a marine college. My problem as minister at that time was that we did not have enough statistics on the required curriculum and the basic manpower needs and relative statistics in order to create such a college. A decision also had to be made on whether the college should be continuing with the Vancouver City college or should be independent.

Now I think the marine industry has been very patient. We worked with them for three years. A complete study was done on the needs of the marine industry relative particularly to curriculum and manpower needs. In fact, I think a 50-page study was completed through the Manpower section of the Department of Labour. All that material is available to the minister. That's why I fail to see any rationale or reason for his press release of May 6 in which he says: "A marine training advisory council has been established by the Department of Education." Again, another marine training advisory council, and what is the purpose? The purpose is, so it was said: "...because we require time to deal with a number of important questions relating to manpower needs, curriculum, and institutional organization."

Now the first two, the minister has the material in his office. This is a completely unnecessary study. The second part, the institutional organization, I understand, is certainly a political decision of any new government. Should it be a separate marine college or should it continue to be operated centrally or from the Department of Education or continue attached to a community college? I can understand that that's certainly the prerogative of the new government, but to suggest that another study is needed on manpower needs and curriculum.... I simply want to ask the minister then: why is that necessary when you have all the material available in your department?

The second point I want to make is that I gather from a letter sent by the deputy minister to the Canadian Merchant Service Guild, the group that particularly has been represented in talks with the federal government, it has been suggested that they will continue on at Vancouver City College. It's a temporary measure until legislation can be drawn up allowing for a central administration department which could administer for the marine college and other like training groups that are not suited to vocational training institutes.

It is quite clear then that the Department of Education must be moving towards a fairly centralized structure in vocational areas such as marine training. I think that the educational community would be most interested in hearing the minister explain to us if it is going to be the policy of his government to move into a fairly centralized organization in the Department of Education to handle areas such as the marine college. In looking over the estimates I don't see where the personnel has increased that much to allow such development in the Department of Education. So I would like to hear from the minister what his plans are towards this apparent centralization in the Department of Education.

I particularly want to ask him why we have this new study, which I consider redundant. The people in the marine industry I am sure must be absolutely fed up with the report that here again we're having another study when what they want right now is urgent facilities created to move on to a marine college for the Province of British Columbia. In view of the number of accidents, et cetera, which we've had recently on the sea and on the B.C. coast there is an urgency to upgrade. I understand there's going to be some upgrading, but my other question to the minister is: is it not true that if you keep it as a separate institution as a marine college you will have the opportunity to get a better, shall we say, financial arrangement with the federal government rather than by integrating it or running it centrally from the Department of Education?

[ Page 1729 ]

I think these are questions that really concern the marine industry. They've waited years and years for this development, and I do think the minister owes it to them to explain to us why there is another redundant study in this area when he does already have the material.

I am also concerned about another study which the minister has announced, and that is the appointment of a one-man commission on university education in British Columbia outside of the metropolitan area.

I consider this another redundant, unnecessary study. The minister's own deputy minister, a very capable person, has done a lot of background work for years in this whole area of extending university education outside the lower mainland. There is a tremendous amount of material on this already, Mr. Chairman. I would like the Minister of Education to explain to us why he has found it necessary to spend $15,000 at the present time anyway — that's the first figure we have — on another commission when he has the material residing with his own deputy and also residing with the universities council. Also if he would look at the college task force of British Columbia which was set up under the NDP, there were some very fine recommendations there on extension of courses — not necessarily degree-granting — and on the whole area of how to extend accessibility to higher education.

I simply cannot see any reason for the appointment of this commission. I hope the minister will be able to elaborate why, when he has material available now, he has seen fit to set up another commission, another series of public hearings, when we've already had hundreds of public hearings on the matter of accessibility outside of the lower mainland for higher education. This concerns me greatly, because the time has come for action to be taken in these areas and I really think the educational community is tired of studies and studies and studies.

We've provided the studies; now take some action on them. I see that the universities council is continuing the committee set up on university accessibility, and my question to the minister is: when this is finished will this be made public for all of us to read and to discuss? Here again, I do think there is already sufficient material to move in this area.

I have a number of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I'll leave it with that for now. Could we have some answers?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to discuss and to get the minister's reactions in a more detailed way on the whole question of value schools. I know that he did make a statement in a broad way regarding them, but I think that the committee must be concerned about the kind of rhetoric that is being used in the debate about the value school education. I'm sure that the minister knows that although they put in the value school system themselves, they are having some debate about one of the basic principles, which they refer to as the whole idea being based on the Judeo-Christian principle.

The Surrey people moved somewhat away from that, but, nevertheless, we are a province which is made up of a large number of minority groups who have some real concern about the debate that is going on in the community about the boundary of schools.

Now this debate does not always take place, unfortunately, in a rational atmosphere. The great difficulty that some have in terms of seeing the value school in a very serious way is partly because of the atmosphere in which it was debated prior to the last election and even during the last election. One has to question and have explanations, I think, in a very real way, from the value school people themselves, as to what their basic aims are. Are the educational? Are they advancing a lifestyle, are they advancing a political style? There are some questions as to the affiliations they have, and we have not had anything in any great clarity from them as to whether, in fact, they are connected with the so-called Canadian Intelligence Service. I know recently that one of the members of that group was up in the Dawson Creek area discussing, at a public meeting, the whole issue of value schools.

Now this issue is going to be taken seriously and in a calm atmosphere. We have to know far more than we already know about this whole issue. I'm aware that there are many questions being asked by people about the education system, but I am concerned, as I said earlier, about the kind of atmosphere in which these questions are raised. It's interesting that a reasonable debate, or a reasonable question is raised on the issue of family-life education and the question of sex education in schools. It can turn into what I think can best be characterized, from time to time, as virtual vigilante meetings.

Now I think it's okay for the minister, Mr. Chairman, to talk about about where he stands in terms of the public education system vis-à-vis the value schools, but I think, as a province, we need far more assurance from the minister that we are going to be able to get a more definitive statement from the department about the value schools. We know, and at least I feel in my observations, that we can look forward in the next few months to a series of very aggressive school board campaigns in which people who are in favour of the value school idea will be putting forward their ideas. We've already had many debates, particularly in the lower mainland area, in Richmond, in Delta, in Surrey, in Langley; and over here we had a debate in Victoria. Recently there was a public debate in the riding of Shuswap and there, as

[ Page 1730 ]

a result of the public debate, the idea of the value schools was turned down.

What we have to have, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Education, is some better explanation from the minister. I think it is necessary for the department to make a statement regarding the value schools and also that we get some kind of a group that will look at the whole issue of the value schools. I don't think we can let it just slide by, because education, in any case, is always a contentious issue, and we have not had in any way, up to now, any rational debate in terms of value schools. After all, if they're able to gain a significant foothold, what is going to happen, for instance, to our native people who have their own attitude to the basic principles in which they live? What is going to happen to the ever-increasing Chinese community, the east Indian community? What is going to happen to the other groups who in no way base their ethos on the question of the Judeo-Christian principle?

I'd be interested if some of the members on the other side, who obviously got a great deal of support from the value school people, would like to make some contribution to the debate. You know, the gnome-like brains over there haven't been very vociferous about education yet, and we would like to hear about it. I'd like to hear, for instance, Mr. Chairman, from the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree). After all, this was debated quite extensively in his riding. He was not present at the debate and presumably he has no thoughts on the value school issue.

But specifically, to the Minister of Education: you've stated your position vis-a-vis the public education system, but the question is, Mr. Minister, that this is a movement that is not going to die — and does it have a place in the education system? If it does, where is it and what is the minister prepared to do to satisfy a large number of the taxpayers in our society that say it simply isn't good enough for some people who support the value school movement to say that because I pay taxes, this is the way I want the education for my children? Now we're getting a great deal of that kind of thing, where people are saying: "We're not satisfied with what the education system is for the majority of people, yet we want to be able to develop our own special kind of education system — of course, being paid for by the public purse."

This to some extent, I suppose, puts them in the same category as in the kind of debate that goes on with the independent schools. We know, for instance, Mr. Chairman, where the government stands on independent schools: they are extremely vociferous during elections about assisting the independent schools, but we know they are not going to assist them.

So we have two groups of people who are concerned about some aspects of education — the independent school people, and we have the value school people. The value school people want to do something different: they want to operate within the public school system on the public purse. And we do have, because of the kind of atmosphere that was generated in the debate during the election and prior to the election, a chance that some school boards in this province will be dominated by people who are in favour of value school ideas which will take away very much from the kind of equal opportunity that we want to continue in this province so that we have an adequate kind of public education system.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister: does he have any concern about this? Is it something that can...? From time to time there are assaults made on the public school system, but I think this one is a much better-organized assault than any we've had previously. It's my opinion that the assault is not only based on the idea that a small group of people want specific kinds of ideals taught for their children but it is politically motivated in a way on which I express a great deal of concern, because, as I said earlier, it's connected with a very dubious right-wing group of people who were responsible for some of the most appalling exhibitions of anti-democracy that we could have seen during an election. I have in mind the kind of demonstration that took place in Richmond, the kind of demonstrations that have taken place in what started out to be debates on such issues as family life and sex education. So we have a very serious problem here, Mr. Minister. I'd be interested, Mr. Chairman, in the minister's remarks.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I take it that the minister wants a series of questions from several members, and that he'll make one response. On that basis we'll continue with a few questions I've raised in this House in question period — the whole matter of fires in schools, and vandalism. I'm not about to expect that this minister, or anybody in this House, has all the answers, but I would like the minister to give the public of the province and particularly the taxpayers, some kind of indication of what initiatives he might be embarking upon to deal with what is a very serious problem.

Before we reached this debate I had hoped that we would have at least some specific data on which we could conduct an intelligent debate. On April 18 I placed some very specific questions on the order paper — it's question 54 — to try to get the facts and figures on which I might be able to make a more intelligent comment in this debate. But the minister, since April 28, has seen fit not to give me any answers to these questions, so perhaps I'd better ask them now. And don't look so smug, Mr. Minister; they've been on the order paper for over two weeks. Your arrogance in this House is becoming just a little too

[ Page 1731 ]

much.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I've got the answer for you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: As soon as it comes, I'll give it to you.

MR. WALLACE: We've also had another matter of great concern to the public — and I'll get on to this issue later — concerning a $41,700 severance pay issue. The minister took the same smug "I'll tell you when it suits me" attitude, and I think this minister had better just watch his step. He used to stand on this side of the House and condemn that same arrogance from the former Socred government, and he's picked up the habit very quickly himself.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): You didn't get up on the right side of the bed this morning, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: No, I got out of the right side of the bed. I'm just not prepared to sit in this House and take that kind of high-handed treatment from this Minister of Education.

The fact that fires and vandalism are very costly items to the taxpayers of British Columbia, I think, means that we should be looking into this issue very carefully, and discuss it in some detail in this debate. In the question period on one occasion, for example, the minister assured me that the Department of Education no longer puts up any construction that isn't fireproof, despite the fact that in the greater Victoria area we are adding expansions to schools which are frame construction and don't have a sprinkler system. I'm talking about Glanford Elementary and Gordon Head Elementary.

I've been in touch with Richmond regarding the fire to the Palmer Junior Secondary School. I'm told that, yes, they would like to build a fireproof school but they can't afford it. There is no way in which the taxpayer is being.... Contrary to government-espoused policy of having less or no tax on property, the taxpayer is this year paying more. And while, on the one hand, the government is telling the taxpayer.... I hope you'll pay a visit to Oak Bay and talk to some of the householders in Oak Bay about how they are going to pay $120 more on their property this year than last year. But that's another issue which we will get to later, Mr. Chairman.

The point is that the minister has given the assurance that only fireproof construction is taking place in the school system in any new construction. I am informed that certainly in the greater Victoria school district there are at least these two extensions which are of a frame nature. It was a frame building that burned down in Richmond.

On further inquiries of the Richmond school board, I understand they are very keen to use cement block for the new building to replace the burned-down building, but the cost facing them is very substantial and, as I pointed out, is not made any easier in the light of increased costs of the operating budget. I understand the minister will be hearing from the Richmond school board, asking for a one-shot grant of half a million dollars to help in the construction of the school to replace the one that was burned down. I would be very interested to know if the minister can give us some outline of policy in general in regard to the issue of fires in the school.

As I say, I would have liked to know, according to the question that I put on the order paper on April 28: how many fires we have had in schools in the past year; what was the total cost of damage; and, on investigation, how many of these fires were deliberately set, and how many were accidental, as far as one can ascertain these matters? How many prosecutions were carried out as a result of those fires? In how many cases was a conviction in court obtained, and was there any restitution paid by the person or persons causing the fire? If so, what was the total sum of money paid in restitution?

Society, rightly or wrongly, seems more permissive these days. And I am glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in the House. As I say, while I criticized the Minister of Education this morning, I would have to be fair and acknowledge that when we debated the estimates of the Attorney-General, we received nothing but courtesy from that minister. But at any rate, the permissive society seems to be unwilling or uninterested in the concept of restitution. Perhaps this is more applicable to vandalism in the schools rather than fires, because we realize that if a fire demolishes a school worth a million dollars, it is unlikely that restitution can be adequate to meet that disaster. Vandalism occurs in schools, and it occurs in all schools. People less than knowledgeable, for example, about Oak Bay seem to think that Oak Bay is some little backwater where everybody is over age 65.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Oak Bay?

MR. WALLACE: We've got a lot of young people in Oak Bay and we have recently had vandalism in the junior secondary high school in Oak Bay. We've had vandalism in Nanaimo, and we have had vandalism in many school districts causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage. It is just a bit distressing to the local taxpayer to get their bill for municipal and educational services in the month of June each year. Most of them, if not all of them, are absolutely eager that the best system of education should be provided at the most economical cost. But when it's

[ Page 1732 ]

obvious that there are items of substantial size that are completely avoidable and caused by a very destructive influence in the community, then they are entitled to ask some of the questions that I think we should be asking today.

I wonder if, first of all, the minister could give us a brief rundown on the departmental policy regarding the construction of schools and if they are to be fireproof or to have sprinkler systems. Is the minister taking this into account in providing more funding provincially for the inevitable increase of capital costs in building such fireproof schools?

With regard to prevention, has the minister given any consideration to accepting, as part of the operating expenditure in schools, a resident caretaker, either on the site or close by, or paying someone who would be close to and living more or less around the clock on or close to the school site? This suggestion seems worthy of some merit because in some news reports I have read, fires that start in schools are well underway and the whole school is often pretty well ablaze before the alert is raised and fire engines get on their way.

Again, I am quite well aware of the fact that you will not entirely prevent fires by having a resident caretaker. But I have received letters and suggestions that this would be one more preventive measure that might indeed lead to some earlier action even if the fire does start. Half or a large part of the building might otherwise survive instead of having a completely burned-out building.

The minister touched on the difficulty of obtaining insurance for schools against fire. It has been necessary to raise not only the insurance rates but the deductible and the cost-sharing arrangements with the school districts. I wonder if he would care to tell us whether he has had any further consultations with school boards since this matter of the cost of fires became very obviously a big item in the financial concerns of school districts.

Finally, could he comment on initiatives that we are taking regarding vandalism — either preventive measures of one kind or another, or at the very least, some new policy which might be instituted in terms of restitution, namely having the students, as they often are students attending that school, contribute their time or their effort to whatever to repairing some of the damage that they have caused?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just to answer some of the questions that have been raised. To the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), what has been established, Madam Member, is not a committee to conduct studies; what has been established is an advisory committee to run it. In other words, it is like a quasi-board of governors. It's not a study. It's a governing group in an academic sense.

I think you well know what the issues are with regard to a separate administrative entity from the financial point of view as well as the curriculum point of view. Is it the best economy to have a separate marine college with its own bursar, with its own labour negotiating team — whatever might be involved — or is it better for the marine college to buy its services from VCC? This is a matter for future policy. But as far as the academic side of it is concerned, a board has been established. That board, of course, is going to consider all the broad aspects of marine training. That includes the issues raised by the member for the north of Vancouver Island (Ms. Sanford).

I might add, just in addition to that, that the Government of British Columbia is in consultation at the present time with the Government of Canada to try and, if possible, obtain special financial and other aid from the federal government because of the extreme interest that the federal government has in marine matters. But that's still at the stage of discussion; we don't have anything to announce in the way of policy in that regard.

With regard to the Winegard commission, I think the member well knows that as far as providing post-secondary academic education outside of the metropolitan centres in Vancouver and Victoria is concerned, there are several ways that this is currently being done. One is by one private institution; another is by several public comprehensive community colleges.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Fine, as soon as they get their house in order, that's a distinct possibility — even a probability. But that is their decision, not ours. We can only make the offer. You can lead a horse to water....

Mr. Chairman, I want the member to appreciate this: the Winegard commission is going to be a very, very significant study in British Columbia. The recommendations will have tremendous impact because decisions have got to be made as how best to rationalize the competition for offering post-secondary education outside the metropolitan areas. We've got the community colleges doing it. We've got one private university doing it. We've got three public universities offering ad hoc extension courses of one kind or another in many centres.

MRS. DAILLY: How about the universities council? Could you raise that one?

HON. MR. McGEER: The universities council will be providing staffing for this particular commission. But we were anxious, I think — you might appreciate this, Madam Member — to have somebody from

[ Page 1733 ]

outside of British Columbia do this so that we would get a dispassionate view. Because, as you can appreciate, the competition is very keen.

MRS. DAILLY: It won't be dispassionate.

HON. MR. McGEER: He might not be regarded as being dispassionate by you, Madam Member. In any event, this is the rationale. The study is going to be a pretty economical one at $15,000. It's going to be completed by Labour Day. I can assure you that it is going to be the best $15,000 the department has ever spent on post-secondary education outside the metropolitan areas. The results of that study will have a very major impact on the policy of the government in this respect.

Now with regard to value schools, the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) raised that issue and, of course, he used the phrase "the educational vigilantes" — and obviously we're not out to support educational vigilantes in British Columbia. But remember that these people prey on the malaise in our school system. Many people who support the so-called value schools.... It's now a charged term; it means different things to different people. It means a lot to the member; he's got very definite ideas. He associates value schools with the vigilantes.

But in some of our schools there is room for more rigour, Mr. Member, than there is today. Some of our schools are doing a better job than others and, of course, if what gives rise to vigilantes in an educational sense and their support is a lack of rigour in the local schools, then obviously the way to deal with the problem is to help introduce that rigour. If the question is one of religion and a failure to transmit religious ethics, that might be part of a school curriculum, certainly not part of the core curriculum. I can assure the member of that. There is a recourse in the separate school system of British Columbia.

They are going to be supported by this government for academic reasons, not for religious reasons, and that support, as I've said many times, will come as soon as the financial condition of the province will permit it.

Now the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked some questions and, Mr. Member, once more, as soon as the answers are available, that very day they'll be tabled in the House. The member asked several times about Capilano College, and if you will look at the report that was tabled, it was put in the House the same day as I received it. When these requests come in from opposition members, as many members well realize, people go to work supplying the answers. As soon as we have the answers, we're delighted to pass them on.

As far as the particular questions about fire and vandalism are concerned, they were fairly detailed questions and people are working on them. We've got the initial information from ICBC. Additional figures are being sought by the Department of Education at the present time, and I think that we'll have the answers to those questions on the order paper in a few days.

I do have some statistical evidence that was supplied to me a couple of months ago by a representative from the Yorkshire Trust. I'd be happy to share this information, but I'm not vouching for its accuracy. But this is what the losses, the destroyed property value in schools, have looked like over the past 12 years. We'll probably have better and more accurate figures on the order paper before too long. But in 1964, according to this preliminary information that I've had for a couple of months, the value of school property destroyed was $950,000; in 1965, $100,000; 1966, $1.4 million — and that was due to a $950,000 fire at Peace River South; 1967, $1.55 million — and that was due to a $750,000 fire in Surrey, another $150,000 fire in Surrey and a $525,000 fire in Barriere; in 1968, $125,000; 1969, $4.15 million — $1.334 million of that due to a fire in Coquitlam and $1.45 million due to a fire in Ocean Falls; in 1970, $700,000; 1971, $2.25 million and $1.1 million of that due to a fire in Kimberley; in 1972, $3.775 million — $1.9 million was a fire in Hope; in 1973, $6 million — of which $2.2 million was for fires in Vancouver, $1.75 million, another fire in Peace River South and $1.5 million, a fire in Sechelt; in 1974, $4.5 million; 1975, $6 million.

The thing to notice is that there are some ups and downs. You will have one big fire here and there every other year, but the point that's alarming is the escalation — in 1971, $2.2 million; 1972, $3.7 million; 1973, $6 million; 1974, $4.5 million; 1975, $6 million. Most of these fires have either been proved to be or are believed to be arson. The cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia for this sort of senseless vandalism is enormous.

The member says that there are schools being built today which are non-fireproofed. I can assure you these were not ones that we approved. These approvals were given, in some cases, two and three years ago. I could check back for the individual schools that are under construction in Oak Bay and give you dates on when the approval was granted and when the tenders were awarded, but that's not something that we've undertaken.

What we have got is submission of all plans now to ICBC for their advice on appropriate fire-control measures. There's not such a thing as a fireproof building really, but one can introduce measures for fire suppression in any building. I want to reassure the member that this is being done in all new buildings that go ahead.

With regard to insurance and the cost, I think that we might spend a moment or two on the details of

[ Page 1734 ]

that. Up until recently we reinsured all of the school buildings in British Columbia. I have forgotten the details, but I think it was a certain percentage over $50,000 and 90 per cent over $500,000, and the reinsurers took it back for obvious reasons. They apparently didn't anticipate obviously the kinds of losses that we've experienced here in the last three or four years. As a consequence, the reinsurers were unwilling to write a comprehensive policy for all of British Columbia at the same rate as before. The rates were so exorbitant that we would have had, as taxpayers of British Columbia, whether it's collected through property taxes or some other source, to pay to insurers outside of this province prohibitively large premiums.

Instead of that, what we did was to change the reinsurance, at a reasonable rate, to $1 million deductible, so we only pay premiums outside the province for an individual loss over $1 million. We consider the rate that we got on that to be a reasonable one. Now if the rate for that shoots out of sight, then obviously it would be better off for us to do all our insuring and reinsuring, one way or another, within the province of British Columbia. Now that has not affected in any way the policy of the individual school district. Each individual school district has its policy for $1,000 deductible. There's still something over $4 million in premium reserve with ICBC against which all fire losses will be paid until that money runs out.

The fire insurance premium has been paid by the Department of Education on behalf of each of the local school boards, which might make it appear as though the school boards were paying no insurance, at all. On the other hand, the amount of money that one puts from the Department of Education into an insurance pool is money that isn't given in the way of grants to the individual school districts in some other form, so it's really as broad as it's long.

When you get right down to the final analysis, we've got something over 1,500 schools in British Columbia and the total sum of money which is available for school construction at the present time is running well over $100 million a year, of which in the last three or four years somewhere between $4 million and $6 million has been due to replacement for fire. You're looking at really something which, in effect, is an insurance company within itself. Now there are many ways in which one can try and discourage vandalism at the local school level, and we're in consultation now with the school districts as to how best achieve it.

However, the individual school districts have exactly the same insurance policy as they had before. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) says: "Is this consultation?" We said, "Yes, we have consultation," because as far as they are concerned there's absolutely no change at all. During the next several months we are going to be discussing with them the best way to handle this particular problem.

Once more I say to all the members: if you've got suggestions for the school boards or for us as to how we can discourage this kind of deliberate vandalism.... It's one thing to break windows if you don't like what the report card says, but it's something much more serious to throw Molotov cocktails in, or to walk in and spread gasoline around and light a match, because the one costs a few hundred dollars and the other might cost $2 million or $3 million.

MR. WALLACE: How about resident caretakers?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's an interesting thing that we used to have that; then the municipalities began to complain about the fact that the resident caretakers were not paying taxes. There were complaints on the part of the unions that it cast a stigma. The man who was the resident caretaker...they used to call them janitors in those days, but they don't do that any more; there'd be some different title.

But because that man lived on the schoolgrounds the unions objected that there was a stigma to that, the municipalities objected to the fact that the man wasn't paying taxes, and the process was abandoned. But it's worth noting that in those former times there was certainly a far lower incidence of losses due to school fires, despite the fact that the buildings were frame buildings. It's part of the psychology of it. So we would like to come up with acceptable ways in which the schools could be protected and guarded, and that's going to be a matter of discussion over the next few months.

MR L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'd like to join with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on this matter of arson in schools. Since I first became a student teacher about 1960, I have noticed a few trends which I would like the minister to try to address his staff towards, in analysing the frequency of arson. I remember the South Peace River fire, I remember the Alpha Junior Secondary School fire, and I remember other particular fires as they occurred in the province. It seemed to me that a great number of these fires tended to be started during holiday periods or weekend periods and not too often during the middle of the week. That's an impression. I think that if that impression is correct and if you should analyse the actual times and periods during which these fires take place, it might strengthen the argument for resident caretakers, or maybe some sort of shift work, which I'm sure the Canadian Union of Public Employees isn't going to like, or some way of having a person in attendance on the site as a deterrent.

[ Page 1735 ]

Of course, another way of preventing this is to have better use of the schools, such as by opening up the gymnasiums and the basketball courts on Saturdays, which is being done in a great number of schools. I think the minister might even be surprised if he found out the utilization that does go on. The fact that these are used on weekends is reason to maybe spend a little bit of money in terms of caretakers, but to do it in a planned way, having them tended during the summer holidays and other periods. I think that when we start looking at the costs which we're paying in terms of fire losses, it could well prove to be worthwhile.

In the matter of value schools, I think that the minister made a rather incisive comment about the motivation when he said that these people prey on educational malaise. As a democratic socialist, I'd like to point out that I am one who believes rigour in academic excellence, but also in opportunity for meaningful educational experience for all students in keeping with their capabilities. Just because someone does not show great achievement in academic pursuits it does not mean that they don't have an interest in academic pursuits.

Students who might be marginal might still prefer to study things like social studies, economics or English literature. Even though their aptitude is not as great as others who might be university-bound, they might prefer to do that to taking metalwork, carpentry, draughting and the traditional vocational programmes that are offered in the school. Vocational training is not the only alternative for people who might not learn at the same rate as people who will be post-secondary bound.

Some of these people show some proficiency. It's been my experience that it's very dangerous to predict the success of people based on what they might happen to be doing at the grade 10 level. There should be a revolving-door policy for a lot of these people. I can cite cases of people who washed out of grade 12 three years in a row, went out and worked, took up education elsewhere and now have Master's degrees from reputed universities. I could point to others who dropped out of school at grade 10 and kicked around for a few years. One of them is now working here in Victoria and is a very successful and well-respected freelance photographer. He's not here in the gallery today, but he has been here on several occasions.

So I would urge the minister to bring about an opportunity for rigour within the schools, but not to take an either/or position with the people who are not capable of rigorous study, who may still wish to pursue academic rather than vocational training. I hope it is understood what I'm saying there.

The term "prey on educational malaise and identifying the lack of rigour" I tend to agree with. A great number of students could go a lot farther, they could work a lot harder. There's no reason why we couldn't open up our high schools on the same basis as universities are open, from 8:30 until 5:30. I would again attack the semester system in the high school because I think it psychologically sets up an attitude of "let's get it over with in five months instead of 10." In fact, there are experiments with mini-courses; then there will be micro-mini-courses and we'll be trying to chop up the education packages into such small units that they'll be absolutely without meaning.

I don't think that's how we'll get increased rigour. We can get it by first of all creating a climate in which teachers do not feel threatened, and then an infusion of in-service training which I think the BCTF will address itself to if it isn't fighting for its life. That has been my experience in the BCTF, that when there was a sense of security we were very active in terms of in-service training.

It's unfortunate that the minister has made a very strong statement in terms of people who are sort of pulled in by this whole attitude which has become known as value schools.

In Creston we had a visit from Mr. Butler...and it says: "Family Life, Sex Education Part of Marxist Plan: Butler."

"Family life and sex-education programmes in the schools are part of an international Marxist conspiracy, according to Mr. Butler, field director of the Canadian League of Rights, who spoke in Creston last Wednesday." This is the Creston Review of Wednesday, April 28, 1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pinko plot.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not only a pinko plot; I'll read some of Mr. Butler's accusations. He labels John Dewey, educational philosopher who was the father of modern education, as a Marxist who served the conspiracy "on the road to socialism as did Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin and Pierre Trudeau." It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

"Dewey's job was to work out the means to use the schools as a vehicle and lay the groundwork for a new society," Mr. Butler said. Then he said that Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan, with the Ford Foundation, helped finance the establishment of foundations that made sure that the radical element was well financed.

"Saying that he was not accusing teachers in general, Mr. Butler said: 'The family life and sex-education programme was a teacher attempt to break up the family unit. These people in the education system are assaulting the moral values of children.'"

MR. WALLACE: What about all the libraries Andrew Carnegie built?

[ Page 1736 ]

MR. NICOLSON: I am reading from the Creston Review. The Creston Review does not subscribe to these things; it's reporting a fact. I'm telling you, and through you, Mr. Chairman, telling the minister, that Mr. Butler is alive and well and thriving in this province, and thriving on trying to misinform people.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is he a car dealer?

MR. NICOLSON: I think that because he is so active and because there are associations with Garner Ted Armstrong, with Hunt and such, between these extreme, right-wing organizations, I think that as the Minister of Education there is a responsibility, an obligation upon yourself to make statements such as you did make earlier in response to value schools.

It's even interesting that he goes on to say: "The revolutionary movement is building in the schools because they realize they will not win the workers, but must use the youth." He admitted that the curriculum guidelines for the family-life programme was not in use currently by the provincial Department of Education. He said he would deal with the guidelines anyway; he felt they were a danger and the programmes were like a disease started by men and women who wanted to capture the minds of the youth. He stated: "The idea that a formal education is good for all is a popular heresy."

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder if he ever read the philosophy of UNESCO.

MR. NICOLSON: He probably has — like you. I haven't read it. He stated: "The idea that a formal education is good for all is a popular heresay," and that the idea of government support for independent schools was a move to bring those schools under government control. Displaying books which he claimed were in use in some schools, he said that both NDP and Social Credit governments were a party to approving books which were too pornographic for book stands but okay for schools.

The meeting was attended by approximately 50 men and women. I would say that persons like Mr. Butler.... I would defend their right to say these things but it makes it incumbent upon us as legislators and, I think in this particular instance, mostly upon the Minister of Education to defend democracy, because we must be vigilant and we cannot underestimate the power of these charlatans of educational philosophy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could influence 48 per cent of the people.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm encouraged by the statement made because I, too, recognize some of the shortcomings of the educational system. I think that there is room for more rigour and that we do have to close up some of the gaps upon which these people are feeding. I've noted, with some fascination, the work of certain people. I attended, for instance, some of the lectures of a person who calls himself an archbishop — John, the leader of the Canadian Temple for the More Abundant Life, I believe it was called. It was quite strong in the 1950s. I went and saw some of those lectures. It was fascinating, Mr. Chairman, to see how he would start with a few truths and he would get his audience — and he was a powerful speaker — and he influenced people who were very successful business people and otherwise very intelligent people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he from Kamloops?

MR. NICOLSON: But he did form opinions; he had a powerful and, I think, a dangerous grip on many people. If we laugh at these people and their pretensions, calling themselves archbishops or pope and wearing purple robes, then it's a dangerous underestimation. As I hope we are all in this House enlightened persons, we have a responsibility to expose those who would exploit democracy and would exploit freedom of speech. I would defend Mr. Butler's right to express his opinions but it is incumbent upon us that we speak out very strongly and that we identify the truths that Mr. Butler is promulgating, but also that we identify the falsehoods and the false conclusions which he is leading to.

I would say that there is a malaise which is breeding this sympathy for value schools. We have a responsibility, as legislators in this House, that we cannot allow this to be a controverted misuse of democracy and to bring about an end...or to ruin a proper educational system. So I'm going to take my seat now and I would again say that the minister has made a strong statement when he said that these people prey on educational malaise. I hope that it is reported. I hope there's some discussion, and I hope that a good number of these people who are interested in value schools will not give up their interest in education but will recognize that there are forces which are trying to manipulate them and that a good number of well-motivated people are being subject to that manipulation.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise in my place today to speak in this debate. As you may or may not be aware, I spent quite a few years in the education business, teaching.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that was a motel.

MR. KAHL: While I do have a number of comments to make about the policies of the fiscal

[ Page 1737 ]

mismanagement of the previous administration in education, I also have some advice for the Minister of Education, and I trust it will be of some use to him.

In the many years that I taught, education as far as parents were concerned was something that was far removed, particularly in the junior and senior high school system. I know that on occasion many students are afraid or ashamed for one reason or another to have their parents go to their junior high or the high school. This is a deplorable situation. Somehow, direction must come from the minister and encourage the local schools and the parents to work together so students and parents are not placed in embarrassing situations, as such.

The family-life education programme that we have heard much about is a step toward that. Many people in the communities are in favour of those programmes. There's much involvement by local communities, and I have been involved in that; I meet regularly with a gentleman from my constituency who is very anxious in those regards. I maintain that there's nothing wrong with the family-life education programme as long as the final decision is left up to the parents as to whether they want their children to take part in the programme. No parent can fault a programme like that. There are many parents who don't feel capable of discussing family-life education with their children. They should be given that opportunity to have the school do it, and include a medical doctor in the team. In my constituency, the local board does it in that way. The decision is left entirely up to the parents whether they want their children to take part in the programme. That's excellent as far as I am concerned.

I want to pay a compliment to the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) for the kindergarten programme that was introduced. In my opinion, it is probably one of the most excellent things that's ever happened in education. Few people realize that from the time a child is born until he is 14 years of age, he only spends 10 per cent of his time at school. On many occasions we are blamed, as teachers, and the Department of Education, for 100 per cent of the problems, and yet very little time is spent under actual school influence. So it's very important that in the formative years of a child's life he be given some good direction, and the kindergarten programme was set up for that reason, I believe.

I would, however, like to suggest to the hon. minister that much more funding is needed in the kindergarten programme. Too much money is spent, in my opinion, in the universities, the high schools, the junior high schools, and not enough is spent in the early grades. That is something I believe the Minister of Education should take a very close look at.

I was interested in an article that appeared in the May 3, 1976, issue of The Victorian in which it says the board is to review its aims and priorities in the greater Victoria school system. I would suggest to the hon. minister that the department share much more information than has been shared in the past with local school boards about what other school boards are doing — their finances, their financial shape. That could be of great benefit to them, and I understand, in talking with the local school board chairman, that that information was really never forthcoming from the previous minister and that department.

I want to talk a bit about the teachers because they are in a very vulnerable position when we have rumours circulating about 5,000 teachers being unemployed. It would be interesting to know where those rumours came from and how they began. I was pleased to see in the Tuesday, April 13 edition of the Victoria Times that the Education minister "guaranteed Monday that there will be no massive teacher layoffs, now or in the immediate future." I had letters from parents in my constituency...

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): That means there won't be 10,000.

MR. KAHL: ...who said they had been told by teachers in the school that their special education classes would be stopped because funds would not be available from the Department of Education. A check with the local school board indicated that was not so. It's those kinds of rumours that we can do without, quite frankly.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) started that rumour.

MR. KAHL: I don't want to point any fingers at who might have begun those rumours, but I have a fair idea that...

MR. LAUK: Chabot. (Laughter.)

MR. KAHL: ...they probably came from the opposite side of the House.

MR. CHABOT: From Mackenzie.

MR. LAUK: Vicious attack!

MR. KAHL: In the Victoria Times on Monday, May 3, an interesting article appeared.

MR. LAUK: Socred big gun.

MR. KAHL: It was entitled: "We Doubt Teachers, Trustees." This is a very touchy subject, but it's well known in education among those of us who taught and still teach. It's difficult, very difficult to lose

[ Page 1738 ]

your job as a teacher. It's too difficult, in fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: I have taught with many people who are excellent teachers; I have also taught with some who shouldn't be in the classroom. Somehow I believe that the minister should work with the trustees and the BCTF and take a look at this situation, not for the purpose of firing a bunch of teachers but for the purpose of encouraging more people who are really willing and want to go into this profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Upgrading.

MR. KAHL: Upgrading, the profession.

I would also suggest, Mr. Minister, that we have, too many administrators throughout the educational systems within the province — too many administrators. Now several years ago administrators were paid extra salaries to administer as well as teach. They have, quite frankly, bargained themselves into an extremely good position today where they receive not only the extra salary but they spend very little, if any, time in the classroom at all.

I somehow have the feeling that many of the teachers are most capable in the schools. Quite frankly, the number of forms and things that have to be filled out for the Department of Education and for local school boards is very, very time-consuming for administrators. I don't really put the sole blame on them but I do think that that is something that has to be taken very.... Take a very close look at that and give them the opportunity to spend their time administering the staff and the students and helping out in research and helping out in discipline problems. Take away some of the form-filling that the Department of Education and the local boards seem to require.

I spent a bit of time in a previous talk talking about the university and faculty members — the commission on Canadian studies. The change of the Universities Act by the previous administration was, I am sure, welcomed by some. But in actual fact, as far as the university was concerned, it had a most devastating effect on the selection of staff members for the university. It returned some of the decision-making process to the university. While the change in the Act was well intended, I do not believe the previous Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) looked far enough down the road as to actually what would happen by doing that.

In giving that decision-making back to the university, what happened was that the staff-selection committees at the university, who are basically set up to interview — what you might say make recommendations and hire staff at the universities — have the opportunity to do just that. Now it is a known fact that in any university in British Columbia or indeed across Canada the majority of staff are not Canadians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! Shocking!

MR. KAHL: As a result, the decision-making process was given to a group of people to hire staff who were not Canadians.

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: You don't understand what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the member for Maui say about this?

MR. KAHL: For example, in the humanities at UVic, one in five of the staff was born in Canada.

MR. NICOLSON: How many are citizens?

MR. KAHL: Very few.

MR. KERSTER: You can't count anyhow. So what difference does it make?

MR. KAHL: Overall at UVic, one in three was born in Canada. Some of you might have followed the controversy in the newspapers lately about Dr. Jeffrey who resigned as chairman of the English department. Now it will be interesting to note how many people on that committee to choose a new chairman will be Canadian.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: They have the job of selecting a new chairman, and I believe that on the committee there's one person out of the five who's a Canadian. It's a distasteful situation.

MR. NICOLSON: How many of them are now Canadian citizens?

MR. KAHL: Pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KAHL: I have no idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: No respect for citizenship.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for....

MR. KAHL: I'm told, quite frankly, by some of

[ Page 1739 ]

my friends who are university professors that there are some people who don't have much respect for Canadian citizenship, who have been teaching at the universities for many years and have never picked up Canadian citizenship, never taken it out. The opportunity's there, and that poses a really grave problem with so many foreigners — for lack of a better word, perhaps.

In the Times editorial of May 22 they said:

"This is Canada. The university is paid for by Canadians. Part of its function is to comment on the Canadian condition, and to suggest solutions to Canadian problems."

Yet we have a large group of people at our universities across Canada, particularly here in British Columbia, where it's very difficult for them to identify with the Canadian scene, simply because they're not Canadians.

Dr. Jeffrey goes on in an article that he wrote:

"The real problem which faces Canadians in trying to decide how to find teachers for their educational institutions is not the issue of nationalism, but the question of cultural integrity."

This is quite a lengthy article that he has written, and here are a few more interesting facts, I believe. For example, in the largest department of the University of Victoria — English — Canadians, at the time of hiring, and naturalized Canadians, together now make up a total of 54 per cent of the regular full-time faculty members in the department. But what this record does not say is that out of 43 currently employed full-time faculty members in that department, 33 were hired in the period since 1965, and that of these only 3-9 per cent...

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Ten per cent.

MR. KAHL: ...were Canadians.

MR. MACDONALD: Ten per cent. Work it out. Three out of 33 is 10 per cent.

MR. LEA: Did you help work on that budget?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's my calculator? Would you explain that again? Three out of 33 is how much?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it's love — nothing.

MR. KAHL: Are you finished?

MR. MACDONALD: Are you?

MR. KAHL: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh.

MR. KAHL: I don't want to disappoint you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) .

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stick with it, Lyle. We're with you all the way.

MR. KAHL: I would like to suggest, Mr. Minister — through the Chairman — to take a look, a close look, at the commission of Canadian studies, what was done, what the commission identified the problem as, and follow closely this fall when the recommendations are finished. A lot of those recommendations I'm sure will be of very much importance to teaching the Canadian cultural values and British Columbia's cultural values to our young people.

I'd like to spend a moment on the core curriculum. Much have we heard about the value schools, and community schools, and whatever other fancy name the public or some administrator can dream up. The fact is that parents expect that when their children go to school they learn how to read and write and do some arithmetic. It's not too much to ask, and certainly the core programme must be enlarged and we must spend much more time on that.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I taught in a community school — a large high school with 1,600 students and a staff of 75 — and those kinds of institutions, quite frankly, become very bureaucratic, very far removed from any personal contact with the students. Quite frankly, not much of a community scene.

I'm pleased to see that there will be more evaluation done of students throughout the system, and I would like to suggest...and I believe it was the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who said the other day: "Don't use job evaluation to judge the teachers." Well, as a staff teacher of a number of years, why not use it to judge how well the teachers are doing? There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. Certainly anyone who has a job is judged on the output, and that's a good way of determining....

Interjection.

MR. KAHL: Well, you can speak for yourself, hon. member.

Interjection.

[ Page 1740 ]

MR. KAHL: Well, we'll speak for ourselves, thank you, or the government will.

I have one criticism, Mr. Minister, and it's about a magazine called Education Today. This magazine I see around the schools I've been in and, quite frankly, it's a waste of money.

Now I would like to see the finances, the money that is spent on this magazine, go toward kindergarten programmes or something like that. I think it was started by the previous administration as political propaganda as to what was happening that was so excellent in the Department of Education. I think it was probably started to report all of the studies that were going on.

We had studies that were going on to study the studies that were going on, and the ex-Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) quite frankly said in her remarks earlier today that there were less studies. We don't have to do any more.

I don't think the hon. member was like the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I don't think she took all of her files along with her; I'm sure she left all of those studies behind. I hope she did, anyway. I hope she did. I would say that you could not put this magazine out in the future and I doubt if you'd have a comment from anyone who said they missed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you table the rest of your speech?

MR. KAHL: I am pleased that I had the opportunity to attend a conference for the minister in Vancouver on English as a second language, and I made some recommendations to him about that, and I trust that we'll see some follow-up on that and some action in the next few years. It's a grave problem.

Also, I believe that a major emphasis should be placed in, the junior and senior high schools on reading and English, some developmental programmes at the high-school level in English. The university, as you might or might not be aware, has remedial English programmes to teach students how to read and write an essay when they come to university. That's a disgraceful situation after a student has spent 12 years in the public school system that the university has to show them how to write an outline for an essay. UVic will keep their remedial English programme, and I think, Mr. Minister, that you should encourage every university to have a programme — but back it up down into the junior and senior high schools.

"Last year," the article says, "350 students took the remedial English programme, or about 17 per cent of the students writing the exam. Nearly 33 per cent were obliged to take the English exam course in 1974." So 33 per cent of the students attending university were required to take the remedial English programme so they could cope with the heavy workload in reading and the essay writing that is demanded of them by the university staff.

I have a couple of other items, one about the work-experience programme. I believe that's an excellent programme in the system and we should see much more of it, particularly with those students who are identified earlier on, in grades 8 and 9, that don't want to go to university for one reason or another.

They should be given the opportunity to work in the community as part of their studies. Too often we have students spend as much time as they possibly can, year after year, in school and go out into the work world, and it's not really all they were ever told it was. You have to work, and they can't cope with that type of a situation. I think if we give them the opportunity earlier on to experience that, they would handle it much better, and I would like to see that programme expanded as well.

I would also like to see more communication between the superintendents of schools and the secretary-treasurers and their input to the board in its financial decisions.

I'm told by a number of chairmen of boards that it's difficult to get information from the secretary-treasurer or work the information together so that they can make better financial arrangements. So I would like to see some work done in that area also.

I was pleased to see an increase in the budget this year to education. It was needed. Certainly I was pleased to see a reduction in the mill increase in comparison to what it was in 1975. That was also a very good move.

Now I must say something more about the teachers, and that is that no matter how much money you spend in the educational field and on equipment in schools, you must keep one thing in mind and that is that the teacher is the greatest resource that can assist the students in learning. We must never forget that. The fancy programmes and all the fancy equipment that sit around in closets are only a very secondary and a very small part of the educational programme. There are many hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of textbooks sitting around in various school systems. I don't know — is there any accounting for these in the Department of Education? Does anyone know where they are? I'm sure there must be some way they could be shared throughout the province and save us millions of dollars.

I will have perhaps a few more comments to make later on when we get to individual items.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, there is one matter that has been raised by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and, I believe, touched

[ Page 1741 ]

on also by the hon. Minister of Education and that's the value-school aspect. The minister, I think, has taken a position on this that I don't think very many people could argue with, but there's one other aspect of it. I think that everyone should have the opportunity of sharing the knowledge that the value-school system as it's being put forward is being put forward by the very same people who are responsible for and directors of the Canadian League of Rights. I would like to share with the House a letter that was addressed to the member, for Nanaimo. It's from Penticton, and it says:

"Dear Dave:

"It occurs to me that you might be interested in my wife's letter to the press, as well as one that appeared in today's Province. Perhaps you would be kind enough to bring these to the attention of your members in the Legislature.

"Two weeks ago Philip D. Butler, field director of the Canadian League of Rights in British Columbia, was in the city to give a lecture on the rape of our children. During the question period he was made to admit that he is a paid-up member of the Social Credit Party, that he took an active part in the party campaign during the last provincial election, that he is a sitting member of that party's educational committee, and that he was an elected delegate to the Social Credit mini-convention held in Vancouver on November 1, 1975, when he presented two resolutions.

"The point is that the Canadian League of Rights has always maintained that they support no political party. It is also known that while we suspect that the full-page advertisements in the Province sponsored by the CLR were, in fact, paid for by the Socreds — Mrs. McCarthy is a friend of Mr. Butler — the party feels its association with CLR may prove an embarrassment. It is my opinion that if this association could be made public knowledge, it could result in a great benefit to Dave Barrett and the NDP.

"With kindest regards and good wishes,
Sincerely yours,
Leonard Saunders."

I think that the minister has taken an attitude, as I said, that no one can argue with, but I think people should know that these kinds of people sit on the educational committee of the Social Credit Party. I think people should also know that the Ladies' Auxiliary to the Social Credit Party in the constituency of Fort George have sent a donation to the Canadian League of Rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding!

MR. LEA: So there is a connection between all three: the value system, the Canadian League of Rights and the Social Credit.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Nonsense!

MR. LEA: Although I believe that the minister, being a bit of a novice to the Social Credit Party, may not be aware of these connections, I think that before jumping into a political party he should find out a bit more about it, because those three organizations are tied together. They're tied together, Mr. Chairman, and there's no doubt about it.

It's not good enough for the Minister of Education to take his place and say "here's my opinion," when the opinion of the party to which he belongs is being shaped and moulded by people such as Mr. Butler, who's on the Social Credit educational committee of the province. I think that before they start coming in here making sanctimonious speeches about their platform, they better straighten up their own party, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a couple of things about the preferential hiring of Canadians in universities. The subject was brought up and the figures are there. I think it's very unfair that we have so many qualified Canadians with the necessary degrees, be they MAs or PhDs, unable to receive employment in our universities. The universities seem to look over the whole world and force Canadian applicants to compete on equal terms with the other people.

I recognize that academic learning should be international, like music, and it should not be chauvinistic or nationalistic, but surely there ought to be preference. There should be a deliberate preference, other things being equal, to a Canadian applicant who has come through our school system and is looking for work in his own country. That kind of preferential treatment has not been given in Canadian universities. I defy anybody to say that that is not still the pursuit of academic excellence where, other things being equal, we give our own people with the background in their own culture and country and values at least an equal chance or, if necessary, a preferential chance for that position, and that's not happening.

The other thing I wanted to say very briefly is that sometimes when people look at post-secondary education they seem to see a certain amount of wastage in terms of what's happening to the taxpayer's dollar and what's happening in terms of educational values to the student. I don't think that sabbaticals, the very short work week, and people

[ Page 1742 ]

who have tenure simply recycling the old lectures year after year and really not bringing much new into the course and perhaps teaching six or nine hours a week are nearly as pervasive or extensive as some people say. That is not being fair. We find too — and again it's a minority in the universities and certainly in the colleges, but it does exist — cases where the door of the instructor, the professor, is closed to students and instead of him putting full effort into that job, the professor or the assistant professor or the lecturer is coasting.

Now I don't think that the public domain should interfere in the fields of academic freedom, but I think that it's up to the universities to look a little bit more closely to make sure that this kind of thing is not happening, because I think that it's unfair to the community at large and it's unfair to the students. They're not getting full value. So where that wastage exists, the challenge is to the universities and the colleges to make sure that both the community and the student get full value. I think they have to meet that challenge more rigorously than they have in the past.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Education....

MR. LAUK: Keep it brief.

MR. ROGERS: I will, Gary — it's my style.

Every Halloween now for many, many years, the stores throughout the province have sold a small, cardboard box-like structure called "The Burning Schoolhouse." It's sold as a Hallowe'en firework-type novelty. When I was with my young son, age 6, last Hallowe'en, he said to me: "Why would anyone want to burn a schoolhouse?" I said: "Well, you haven't been in long enough to develop a hatred for them." But that apparently seems to be the motive. So I wonder if we couldn't have the Attorney-General's department ban the sale of "burning schoolhouses" as a Hallowe'en novelty, rather like the banned the sale of firecrackers some years ago.

My second remarks have to do with the sabbatical system. It hasn't got into industry in the way that it got into education because industry can't afford it and I wonder if they ever will be able to. It would be my suggestion that if the people taking sabbaticals would be prepared to take 75 per cent instead of going at 100 per cent of salary on sabbatical, we'd have applications only from those who are genuinely serious in their desires to improve their education, rather than those that would just like to have a year off. I must admit that if the House would give leave, I'm sure that several people here would love to take a sabbatical from our duties here at full pay and allowance.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I rise to speak briefly on two matters. The first of them is a request to the Minister of Education, through you, Mr. Chairman, that he take this opportunity today to repudiate the support his coalition government and the Social Credit Party have won from the Canadian League of Rights. I think it's been made fairly clear — and, if not, let me repeat it — that the Canadian League of Rights is well known to be a tiny organization of cuckoos and crackpots, fruit cakes and nuts...

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Sounds like the NDP.

MR. BARBER: ...who have throughout the years seen communists everywhere, and who have throughout recent years been supporting your party, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

It's well known that this group of loonies actively supported the Social Credit Party in the last campaign, and is actively involved in the so-called value school movement presently going on.

I wonder, very seriously, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Education would like to take this opportunity to repudiate the basketcases, the goofs, the psychos and the paranoids that run the Canadian League of Rights. They do, at the moment, offer their support to you, Mr. Minister. I should think that at least you would be decently embarrassed by that. You might even want to take this opportunity to clean up your political act a bit and repudiate them. So, if I may, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, take my seat while the Minister of Education, hopefully, stands and repudiates the support of this notorious group....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I must honestly confess that I was not even aware of the Canadian League of Rights, or who they were, before this subject came up today. I want to assure the member that I would be the first to repudiate all cuckoos, crackpots, fruit cakes, nuts, loonies and basketcases. If members of the Canadian League of Rights fit those definitions...well, you know, crackpots, cuckoos, fruit cakes, nuts, loonies are out there in the community and they have their political loyalties to various parties like everyone else.

Naturally, one is embarrassed by extremists from any party, and I want to assure the member that the support is more embarrassing than the opposition.

Now some of the members have raised points and I might as well deal with them quickly. Before I do I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Jack Fleming, the Associate Deputy Minister for Financial Services, who was in Montreal earlier in the week. Also in the gallery, up in the middle of the front row, I notice Mr. John Meredith who is in charge of the learning-assessment programme in the core curriculum. So, again, any members who wish to

[ Page 1743 ]

become familiar with the faces of our senior members of the Department of Education, there they are. Once more I extend an invitation to each of you, through them, to seek any information that you wish directly from them.

The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) raised the subject of foreign teachers, as did the Attorney-General. Of course, it is a matter of concern when you view the results of many years of policy, as it's been practised by governments, in the method of funding, and by universities in the way they discharge their duties. At the present time the whole matter, as hon. members know, is being reviewed by both the federal government and the universities. They are examining the consequences of their policies, and we hope that the results will be more satisfactory to Canadians in general.

But I'd like to say just a word or two about post-secondary funding in British Columbia, because it's an important issue, and one on which I think members from all sides of the House, and people from all educational institutions, might consider joining forces in order to gain some redress.

The federal government, 10 years ago, announced a policy of supporting post-secondary education in Canada. In the past 10 years the federal government has transferred to the provinces, and via them to the educational institutions, some $8 billion. Of this, $4.5 billion has been in the form of tax transfer. That is the amount of money that comes to the provinces by the federal government and yielding income tax points. In addition to this an additional $3.5 billion has been paid in so-called adjustment payments which, theoretically, pay 50 per cent of the cost of all post-secondary education that is above and beyond that income tax abatement.

But the federal government put a limit on the amount of money. Some provinces were ahead of British Columbia in the amount of post-secondary education, or in the generosity of their definition, at the time this programme had been instituted. As a result of this $3.5 billion in adjustment payments that have been made over this past decade, only $126 million, or 3.6 per cent, has come to British Columbia.

If the money had been divided fairly, on a per capita basis, British Columbia would have received $255 million more. Mr. Chairman, one can do a tremendous amount in the post-secondary field, including graduate education for Canadians who would ultimately be able to take these positions in universities, for that kind of money. The Fiscal Arrangements Act, as it is currently being applied in Canada, is costing the province of British Columbia between $25 million and $40 million a year.

I have told all the universities, all the community colleges, some institutions like Trinity Western which give quite excellent post-secondary academic courses, that if the federal government will pay to British Columbia its share, that will be transmitted immediately to these institutions. If the federal government will give the province of British Columbia the same kind of treatment that it gives to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, there will be a windfall for our educational institutions in British Columbia each and every year. If we are given an opportunity to recover that $255 million that we have lost in the past 10 years, then that will be additional money to them. Admittedly, inflation will make those dollars much less valuable in the future than they have been in the past.

I want to assure the House and the public that I have taken up this question with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the Premier of British Columbia and they have taken up this question with the federal government. I have made representations to the Leader of the Senate (Hon. Mr. Perrault) and to the appropriate ministers in Canada who have jurisdiction over this programme. It is a matter of regret to me that there has been such prejudice against our educational system here in British Columbia for so many years and that the federal government before this has not seen the unfairness of their ways and moved to give this province justice.

Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to some of the other matters, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) raised the subject of Education Today. We will be happy to review the effectiveness of that publication. I want to say that it did produce some statistics on the education finance formula in British Columbia and it seems to be the only way of getting any information out on that complex subject.

The member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) raised the subject of the burning schoolhouse Hallowe'en treat. I want to tell you that I certainly agree with him, and I am going to get after that one as soon as possible. I also share the member's concern about the problem of sabbatical leaves. As he points out, it's a luxury that private industry can't afford and it should be regarded as a distinct privilege which is granted to certain people in the teaching profession. It should be used with the recognition that it is a distinct privilege. It is not the practice of most institutions to pay the full salary during sabbatical leave. There may be some cases where the full salary is paid. If so, again I would disagree with that. But the terms for sabbatical leave, because it is a distinct privilege, should be set so as to be very stiff. Obviously if it's something which is abused, keeping in mind that the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying the majority of the educational costs at all levels, then I think it's something, of course, that has to be reviewed. But one would very much regret, I would think, governments having to interfere in any way with the way in which educational institutions run their affairs. If it were necessary, it would be a

[ Page 1744 ]

regressive step,

MR. BARBER: I am happy for the comments that the minister made about the crackpots, at least one of whom is a member of his party and sits on his education committee. Perhaps we'll hear more about the other crackpots in the party later on.

I rise on a matter of some seriousness, though, and I'll wait for a moment until the minister is listening. We are facing this September in Victoria, and I expect as well at Simon Fraser and the University of British Columbia, the annual housing crisis. Students again this year are going to come from every part of the province and many parts of the country to find that they have literally no place to stay when they arrive in September. This crisis has been going on for many years and is going on at a greater level this year than last, as it's increased over the last several years for which I have records. I have in front of me various tables prepared as part of an institutional analysis undertaken by the University of Victoria and, I would presume, judging by their content, by the other universities in British Columbia as well.

I would like to read a bit of this information into the record and then primarily, Mr. Chairman, what I would wish to put to the minister are a couple of questions about policy — his policy at present, his policy intent regarding the provision of student housing on campus in the three universities for which he's responsible at the moment in the province of British Columbia. I would like to set the stage, though, by telling him that at the University of Victoria this year it is anticipated there will be an 8 per cent increase in student enrolment and that 60 per cent of these students are from out of town — off the Island — from the smaller towns, communities and villages of British Columbia. Sixty per cent of them do not reside in greater Victoria. They come to this town in September and they find that they have, quite literally, no place to stay.

You may recall, Sir, that in previous years, slums, ghettos, test cities have been erected on the lawns of, that building. They expect that this year tents again will have to go up on the lawns of the Student Union Building because this year there is no provision for extra student housing.

In a survey of 30 Canadian universities, the University of Victoria ranked 23rd in the provision of student housing and student accommodation. There are at that university 604 units presently available, 4,601 full-time students and another 2,500 part-time. The percentage of residential accommodation to full-time students is 13.1. We rank 23rd; the University of Victoria comes in 23rd among the first 30 universities in Canada. The only one we beat out is Simon Fraser, also under your jurisdiction, Mr. Minister. Simon Fraser comes in 27th.

This is not a very good record. The University of Victoria board of governors approved a year and a half ago a proposal that was incorporated in this year's budget application to the department for an extra 300 units of student accommodation to be located on the campus of the University of Victoria. It was turned down by this minister, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what this minister intends to do. It was cut out of their budget — removed from their budget. A statement in their own newspaper declares as much. I have it as well in the figures that have been provided to me through the dean of administration's office. An extra 300 units might have been ready to go this fall but were cut out of the budget.

I want to know from the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, what he intends to do about the crisis that is coming upon this university and those students this September. It is only a few months away. There are only a few months left in which to lay plans, develop strategy and make alternate accommodation available for these students.

It is the expectation of the student body and the administration, at the University of Victoria that some 350 to 450 students will face the same crisis that you know about, Mr. Minister, that has been faced in other universities across Canada for several years — 350 to 450 left out in the cold.

I want to read very briefly, if I might, a couple of other figures. It should be noted that in a survey of 11 universities in Canada of roughly the same student population the University of Victoria came in 10th out of 11 when examining single student beds available and students unable to obtain residential accommodation at the beginning of the 1975-76 academic year. The University of Victoria came in 10th out of 11 — second to last.

There were at that time 611 student beds available; 1,200 students applied for those 611 beds. The rest of them ended up in some of the crummier accommodation in Victoria or living in those tents on the lawn of the Student Union Building.

Places available in residential accommodation — Victoria, in a survey of students unable to obtain residential accommodation at all on their first try, ranked 9th out of 11. The first time around, 1,208 students were able to obtain nothing at all. There were 604 places for them to stay.

My question is very simple, Mr. Chairman. I want to know what policy the minister intends to develop and introduce, what programmes he is willing to develop, what moneys he is willing to spend and what results he expects from those programmes this September when we see again on the lawns of the University of Victoria students camping out in tents. Because cut from the budget this year was provision for 300 units of accommodation, 300 which themselves would not have been enough, 300 which themselves would at least have helped a bit but which, as I say, were cut. I want to know what the

[ Page 1745 ]

minister's policy is on student housing. I want to know what he is willing to do now to meet a crisis looming now which will reach its own fruition in September.

It's a very real problem for those students, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman; they don't know what they're going to do. Sixty per cent come from out of town; 60 per cent of them come here hoping to find a place to stay. When they find nothing, they are in fairly serious trouble. What is your policy, Mr. Minister? What do you intend to do in the future? What will you do to help alleviate this crisis come September?

HON. MR. McGEER: I quite agree with the member that there is a problem — a continuing problem and one that isn't going to go away. The Department of Education, Mr. Member, has never dealt with the housing policy of students. It is for the Minister of Housing, who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

MR. BARBER: What about the universities council?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I think the point that I am trying to make is that the universities council has jurisdiction over the academic side and the division of finances for academic purposes. But housing is something which traditionally has been first with Municipal Affairs and then with Housing. I think if you could direct your questions to the Minister of Housing in this government.... As in the previous government it is under his jurisdiction. It's just not the province of the Department of Education.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I feel that under vote 39 one has an opportunity to discuss another aspect of this minister's responsibility. I know that we would like to talk about education in this House for some time, and it has been discussed for some time. There are a number of votes under the minister's responsibility where education will continue to be discussed as far as our side is concerned, certainly to get the questions answered that are deemed to be most urgent in this province.

I would like to change course for a little while, Mr. Chairman. With the indulgence of the minister, I'd like to talk just a little bit about the Insurance Corp. of B.C., ICBC. I think most of us will recognize that there is a rather new wind blowing in this province — it's almost a hurricane emanating from the Royal Centre in Vancouver. That hurricane, incidentally, has carried with it a lot of the money from the pockets of the people who can least afford it in British Columbia, to make B.C. almost a disaster area in this regard.

I'd just like to develop for a second or two what kind of a mentality developed the holocaust. In reading the annual report of the insurance corporation, the third annual report, I see that there's a presidential message, as is found in most annual reports. Incidentally, I'm interested in the fact that there is a presidential message and that the president is a member of the Legislature and a minister of the Crown in B.C.

One of the directions that the coalition, when they were campaigning during December of last year....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I guess you get a little upset when I speak, sir. Well, that's just your tough luck.

Mr. Chairman, one of the very definitive directions that the coalition took at that time was: let's get politics out of ICBC. We still see a minister of the Crown as the president of the corporation, and not only a minister of the Crown, but as president, obviously making most of the decisions and still issuing his presidential reports.

MR. CHABOT: Where is the former president?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the former president is relaxing at this moment.

MR. CHABOT: On the cocktail circuit in London, England.

MR. COCKE: ...just like the member for Columbia River is relaxing, and as the member for Columbia River has done for so many years.

Mr. Chairman, let me read to you a line or two out of the president's report.

AN HON. MEMBER: We read it.

MR. COCKE: If you have, then you have gained a great deal of prestige in my eyes. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, this is a paragraph: "It is the intention of the present administration that the corporation will operate in the future on a break-even basis without further subsidy from the government."

Let the record show that every one of that caucus acknowledged that part of the report by banging on their desks.

Mr. Chairman, the language reveals political interference. Yes! Political interference. "It is the intention of the present administration that the corporation will operate in the future on a break-even basis without further subsidy from the government." Made very clear. Where are these promises?

You know, that group made a lot of promises. Mr. Chairman, you were never part of that, of course. That group over there made all sorts of promises, and

[ Page 1746 ]

one of their most committed positions was that the insurance corporation would immediately be divested of any political interference. Isn't that interesting?

So where are those promises? We've seen the kind of adherence to strategy that some of us expected. But we expected you to be just a little bit more diplomatic in the way you kept your promises.

"In the year ahead the corporation will face many challenges to test the validity of its new policies and programmes and skills and its management." Mr. Chairman, again, part of that same syndrome.

He goes on to say at the end: "I am confident that the corporation has the organization, the resources and the enthusiasm to provide outstanding service to the public of British Columbia throughout the coming year," and, Mr. Chairman, at a price. What a price! What a price we paid!

Later in another context I'll be reading from some of the best-informed minds in this country as to what causes inflation, and show that some of the direction that this coalition has adopted is a direction taking us further down the garden path.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you will be relating to the vote and asking questions...?

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, what am I relating to? — the minister's responsibility as fiscal and government representative on the board of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia; the only place we can discuss this, Mr. Chairman, with respect, is under vote 39.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, direct that rather new and young fellow to go back to his chair if he wishes to heckle. That's part of the rules.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've been very interested in is how the present president of the insurance corporation has been boasting about a drop in claims. I suggest to you, and this House, no wonder, and no wonder on two counts. We found that the insured vehicles in B.C. have dropped by 200,000.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): We're on Education; don't talk about ICBC!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I guess the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) doesn't understand the ways of the House. But in any event, I suggest to you that it's no wonder. The insured vehicles dropped 200,000. That's a 15 per cent drop in insured vehicles in this province. It's a 15 per cent drop, Mr. Chairman, but it gets worse than that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): You're wrong, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: It actually is a net decrease of 24 per cent, and I'll tell you why: because there's normally an increase of 9 per cent each year, so if there's a vehicle drop — that is an insured vehicle drop of 15 per cent — then I would go on to say that in view of the fact there is normally a 9 per cent increase, there's a net decrease of 24 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention a note, April 8, Vancouver Sun: "Insured Vehicles Drop by 200,000." Victoria is the dateline:

"The Insurance Corporation of B.C. has to date insured more than 200,000 fewer cars this year than it did last year, according to..."

Who? According to that eminent president,

"...according to ICBC president Pat McGeer. McGeer filed a letter with the House Wednesday reporting that the government-owned corporation had, as of April 2, received insurance forms for $1,066,570 vehicles compared with 1,286,899 insured last year.

"The letter from ICBC general manager, Norman Bortnick, said however that some of the 200,000 difference was probably due to renewal forms still being processed in agents' offices."

This is April 8. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, there has been a significant drop in insured vehicles in the province of British Columbia, and what happens then?

Mr. Chairman, beyond that, people in this province are once again in the position that they are afraid to make claims — especially those people under the age of 24.

What does this mean to me? What does this mean to any responsible, socially conscious person in this House? It can mean one thing and one thing only, and that is that we're back to the old days of wrecks on the road, and you see them now, Mr. Chairman. I defy you to go down any street, in any direction, for any length of time, and you will find the old wrecks driving around again — cars which should be repaired but are not being repaired because people are afraid to make those claims.

Mr. Chairman, moreover, uninsured drivers on the road again; uninsured drivers — 200,000 net plus the reduction, the minus that we're enjoying because of what we would normally expect to be an increase. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that there are two

[ Page 1747 ]

very serious situations developing in British Columbia: one is uninsured drivers and the other is wrecks on the roads.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the insurance corporation had a course to follow, a course that was set out, a course which would have enabled our people in our province to enjoy reasonable rates and obviate some of this problem we are now facing. That course was not followed, much to the chagrin of people in B.C.

Mr. Chairman, just in case anyone here feels that the course wasn't set out significantly, I would like to draw to your attention a press release issued October 15, 1974. It was issued in the name of Robert Strachan, who was then the president of ICBC. Let me read, to those of you who would like to hear, what he said at the time:

"Strachan, Minister of Transport and Communications in the NDP cabinet that introduced compulsory government auto insurance in March of this year, told a news conference that the savings to motorists have been made possible because of additional revenue coming to the government through petroleum resources. We made the revenues available to ICBC with only one simple guideline — it's to be used as a first stop toward uniform rates."

Mr. Chairman, we talk about the gas tax. The gas tax was the vehicle, but what the then Hon. Robert Strachan was talking about was the increased revenues that we have enjoyed because of our policy on petroleum products, particularly natural gas, where British Columbia increased its revenues $200 million a year — and, if you wish to, deduct $50 million as the federal share.

MR. KEMPF: What did you do with it?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we'll get into that in due course, but this money is available through the course that we set up, and that is the gas tax course.

MR. DAVIDSON: The greatest cover-up in the history of this province!

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) would talk about cover-up. Moreover, besides his talking about cover-up, let's talk about that for a minute. That $200 million would never have accrued to this province had it not been for an NDP government. Don't kid yourselves! You people sold gas at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet to the Americans, and it was an absolute giveaway — a giveaway like we had on the Columbia River, a giveaway like that government was noted for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 39, please.

MR. COCKE: This coalition, Mr. Chairman, is exactly the same kind of government that we enjoyed in the past. Now let's get back to another press release I have.

This is a press release that was delivered on March 5, 1974, in the province of Saskatchewan, by Mr. Romanow. Mr. Romanow is the Attorney-General for the province of Saskatchewan. Mr. Romanow said that charges would result in about 77 per cent of passenger vehicles registered in the province receiving premium reductions, and the premium reductions are to be paid for out of revenues from the provincial motive-fuel tax. It's not a bad idea.

MR. KERSTER: They just raised theirs.

MR. COCKE: Oh, did they? I would like you to go and check that one out.

Mr. Chairman, it is a good way, a way to produce a levelling effect where those who drive more pay more. The way it is now, with these rip-off rates, some people who drive very little are getting taken to the royal cleaners.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: A transfer of funds is valid, and it was valid because of the fact that we had increased revenues. Oh, certainly the province had difficulties, like everywhere in the western world, and if you think that your systems of borrowing and your systems of cutting programmes are going to stand

B.C. In good stead — your systems of increasing rates, the inflationary work that you're doing — if you think that's the way to go, then you just continue on that course, but we have to speak for those people who don't necessarily agree that everything the coalition does is right.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The vehicle is the gas tax route, but the increased revenue was from the increased revenues we obtained from the oil and natural gas royalties. I suggest to you that that system was available, but why didn't the coalition go for it? I'll tell you why they didn't go for it: because the coalition has friends that they wish to please, and I think that we can certainly see those friends emerging. We're starting to hear noises. We're starting to see insurance companies coming back to British Columbia and registering their intentions to go into the automobile insurance business. You know what the consequences are of that.

MR. DAVIDSON: Efficiency.

[ Page 1748 ]

MR. COCKE: Efficiency! We see, for instance, the difference in efficiency. We see Manitoba, we see Saskatchewan, with efficient, first-class automobile insurance programmes.

We see B.C. invaded by this coalition, and we go back to charging monumental premiums to the people of B.C. And you have the audacity to sit there and talk about efficiency. Anyone can run an efficient operation if you're provided with the powers to charge anything you like. Anything you like, Mr. Chairman....

MR. KERSTER: Did Yvonne write your speech?

MR. COCKE: No, if Yvonne had done this speech, it would be a lot better. Mr. Chairman, that was interesting, that comment.

So, Mr. Chairman, what are the consequences of these friends coming back to British Columbia? What are they? Well, Mr. Chairman, the economic consequences of the coalition direction for ICBC, I think, are particularly bad. ICBC was an investor in this province, and where did they end up?

MR. KERSTER: Red ink!

MR. COCKE: Remember, I talked about this some time ago in this House. ICBC was quite a significant investor. It's a billion dollar job. It says....

Oh, listen to this! You could use a little informing, member for Hawaii! "Investing ICBC Premiums" is the caption here. "It's a billion dollar job. 'Our basic policy,' says the person with the billion dollar job, 'is to keep the dollars invested in B.C. Only a small portion of our funds go east.!" Now that is quite a contrast to the....

MR. KAHL: When did he write it?

MR. COCKE: Your own man at ICBC, the man who does all the investing, Jim Fletcher. Well, ask the minister. But, Mr. Chairman, our basic policy is to keep the money invested in B.C. Now remember, I said earlier, Mr. Chairman.... This was March 17, 1976, and this wasn't written by him. This was written by Pat Durant of the Vancouver Province.

" That is the amount of money. The billion dollar figure is the total value of transactions carried out by Fletcher from his money-market desk in ICBC's downtown Vancouver office.Since most of the money goes into short-term investments, for periods as short as 30 days, the same dollars' can be recycled several times during one year. The actual amount of premium money Fletcher has had to work with over the two years has been less than $500 million in cash, but the money has an all-over effect because he's been able to reinvest and reinvest."

So, Mr. Chairman, it's worth a billion dollars to this province, and yet I see the present course: bring back those insurance corporations and let the money go back down to Hartford. Let the money go back to New York; let the money go back to London or wherever it used to go and do no good for the province of British Columbia. Had it not been for the fact that we had an NDP government during the tough years, this province would be in a much worse state than it is now, I'll tell you, a lot tougher state than it is now. So, Mr. Chairman, don't undo the good that has been done in this province and don't let that coalition minister of yours get away with anything that will be detrimental to this province, because it could happen.

I see some of the things that he's saying in the paper, and there's a lot of speculation out there that they're prepared to give it back to their old friends, their old friends who were playing the ditty during the election, "Thanks For The Memories," — now the same people that listened to that are expecting any day, "Who's Sorry Now?"

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, yes, we've looked at the statistics, there are uninsured cars out there. People are afraid to make claims, Mr. Member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd). What a shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The member for New Westminster has the floor, and we have no right to interrupt him.

MR. COCKE: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's so nice to see you back in the chair seeing to it that discipline prevails in this House.

Mr. Chairman, it was brought to our attention the other day that there were a couple of orders-in-council that went through giving the right to sell automobile insurance in this province to a couple of notable B.C. companies. No, no, they're not B.C. companies. No, Mr. Chairman, one is the First National Insurance Co. of America and the other one is Unimerica Reinsurance Co. Very nice to see us being hospitable, and it's hands across the border as far as I'm concerned, but I don't like to play the coalition game of giveaway across the border. It happens all the time with that group and it will continue to happen until they have walked the road to Damascus, until they've seen that burning bush, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I hope it can happen to them soon enough to deliver B.C. from eternal fire.

Mr. Chairman, they want to come back. It's interesting how the insurance corporations want to come back: they want to come back, but they want to come back on their own terms. Recall the

[ Page 1749 ]

suggestions that have been made recently about where they have been and where they are going. But when they are asked, they want to say very clearly that the return of the insurers is eyed by the minister. But then the insurance corporations are saying that they were jilted once and now they are looking for their own terms to come back. Mr. Chairman, I am very worried because I know what their terms will be.

Thank you very much for bringing me back to order, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

It's a great business. The business from the coalition told us what a significantly good job they are going to do with ICBC. They are going to watch the in-flow and the out-flow of money. But look what they did, Mr. Chairman. Not only did they raise the cost to the people in this province significantly, but look what they did with the commissions. As if it wasn't enough windfall to the agents that the premiums would go up as they did! They tell us that they reduced the commissions from 7 to 5 per cent, but let's look at the net effect of what happened. Very interesting indeed — the commission rates on basic coverage dropped from 7 to 5, but the premiums that more than doubled, in all instances, raised the average commission across the board to 70 per cent — raised it 70 per cent. This is in times of inflation, Mr. Chairman. Shame on that government!

Mr. Chairman, there were also rates for extended coverage. There was....

MR. KAHL: When you were in cabinet you raised your salary 100 percent.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you are sitting there pontificating. Are you giving yours to charity or are you accepting it? Don't give us the rubbish over there, Mr. Member! Don't give us the rubbish!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two minutes.

MR. COCKE: Two minutes left; oh, how time flies! Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They sound like a bunch of chipmunks, those backbenchers. I know that the Premier is going to have difficulty in making up his mind which chipmunk he is going to bring up onto the front bench.

Mr. Chairman, it goes beyond that. We took collision out of the benefit that one must have and we made it optional. Therefore the commission we pay on collision now is 10 per cent instead of 7 or 5. So that made that rate go up 140 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, ICBC, in my view, was handled by a doctor who saw what he thought was a foreign body in its eye. ICBC was handled by a doctor who saw what he thought was a foreign body in the eye of B.C. He performed massive surgery and what did he remove? He removed the eye of B.C. It's too bad. We would like to see that member for Point Grey, that minister of the Crown, do something better with what could be a fine service in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member made a number of references during his speech, and I'll answer each one of them. Just today I would like to deal with (01) — that is with regard to the number of automobiles registered in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Insured.

HON. MR. McGEER: Insured. We don't know. The figures that were tabled in the House were estimates of the insurance corporation, estimates arrived at by taking the total amount of money which is received, which is known, and dividing it by what they believed to be the average premium. I got two figures this year: one that the registrations on this basis were up, the other that the registrations were down. I don't think we know at this stage within 20 per cent the number of cars registered in British Columbia. Why? Because the system that we inherited, set up by the NDP, was an unholy mess and it still is a mess.

Mr. Chairman, that is another thing we are going to straighten out. There will be legislation brought down this session to help with that problem.

Last time, when I spoke on the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, I outlined the scandal that had been developed since June, 1974 — how there was a massive cover-up about the finances of that province, how it led to a debt of $185 million. At the time I took over the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia it had no money; it was unable to pay its bills.

A plan had been started, Interaction, which would have lost another $147 million in addition to the $185 million that has been lost. Mr. Chairman, that was only half the story. The other half of the story commenced before June of 1974 when there was another massive cover-up going on about the finances of that corporation, when the minister who made that speech was a party to that cover-up. I haven't time to deal with that today but I will deal with it on the floor on Monday.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House a group of students from Britannia Secondary School who are here with their

[ Page 1750 ]

teachers. I would ask the House to welcome them. They have arrived since the House convened this morning.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.