[ Page 4039 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Hiring of data processing personnel. Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4039

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Olympic flame ceremony financial support. Mr. King –– 4039

Sheltered allowance for handicapped. Mr. Gibson –– 4040

ICBC claims investigation. Mr. Macdonald –– 4040

Duties of Dianne Hartwick. Mrs. Dailly –– 4042

Assistance for hog producers. Mrs. Wallace –– 4042

B.C. Hydro student bus passes. Mr. Wallace –– 4042

Cost of budget speech. Mrs. Dailly –– 4042

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Education estimates.

On vote 158.

Mr. Gibson –– 4042

Mr. Wallace –– 4046

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4049

Mr. Rogers –– 4052

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4053

Mr. Cocke –– 4053

On the amendment to vote 158.

Mr. Macdonald –– 4055

Mr. Barber –– 4058

Mr. Lea –– 4059

Mr. Nicolson –– 4059

Mr. King –– 4060

Mr. Lauk –– 4061

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4063

Mrs. Wallace –– 4064

Division on the amendment –– 4064

On vote 15 8.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4065

Mr. Cocke –– 4067

Mr. Wallace –– 4068

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4069

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I have the honour of making several introductions to the members today. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to welcome a group of Victoria senior citizens from the James Bay New Horizons Centre visiting in the gallery today and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dick Bradshaw and his charming wife, Marie, are visiting in the precincts and in the gallery today and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

And last but not least a very active citizen of Victoria, a supporter of many worthy causes, Mr. Bill Stevens, is with us in the gallery today.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of my colleague, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , we would ask the House to welcome today Mr. Plumber, who is the teacher of 10 summer session students from Sir Charles Tupper School. I understand they're in the gallery today and it is my hope, if time permits after the question period, that the hon. first member for Vancouver East and I will meet with the students. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a good friend of mine and the vice-president of the Social Credit constituency organization in Kamloops, Mr. Al Quigley.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): I would like the House to assist me in welcoming six tourists to this House this afternoon: my wife, my son, Kenton, my daughter, Lisa, and three nephews and nieces from the good old country near Swift Current. Gerald, Beverly and Diane are in the Speaker's gallery.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I would ask the members to extend a hearty welcome to Harvey and Pauline Anderson and their daughter, Alicen.

HIRING OF DATA

PROCESSING PERSONNEL

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 25, the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) raised a matter of privilege in the House. It involved advertisements placed by Woods, Gordon & Company in the July 23,1977, edition of The Vancouver Sun on page 42. 1 might say, Mr. Speaker, that the reason I rise now is I was not in the House at the time of the member's statement and I wish to make certain of the facts in the case. Also, the member gave me no notice of his intention to make such a statement.

To proceed, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) alleged that there had been a breach of the privileges of this House in that, as Minister'r of Finance, I had authorized advertisements to hire senior data processing personnel prior to the passage of a bill which is now before the House - namely, Bill 44, the Systems Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has the intent of establishing a systems corporation. As I have said, I was not present in the House when the second member for Vancouver-Burrard raised his point of privilege. I have since reviewed his statement and the content of the advertisements referred to and, without in any way wanting to prejudge your decision in this matter, I would appreciate this opportunity to make a brief explanation which may assist you in your deliberations.

Firstly, the particular advertisements make no mention, Mr. Speaker, of the proposed systems corporation. They refer specifically to a new organization which could, in effect, be within the Ministry of Finance. The estimates for this purpose are provided for in vote 5, computer and consulting services, which estimates have already been passed unanimously by this House.

Mr. Speaker, the government has already announced its intention to consolidate the use of computer and data-processing services in ministries. Quite clearly, if Bill 44, the Systems Act, now before the House, does not proceed the government will still go ahead with this organization within the Ministry of Finance.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, with respect, that the placing of these advertisements in no way pre-empts or prejudges the consideration of the bill before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I trust this information and explanation may be of use to you in arriving at your conclusion in this matter.

Oral questions.

OLYMPIC FLAME

CEREMONY FINANCIAL SUPPORT

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. When in 1976 the provincial government granted financial support to the B.C. Olympics committee for the Olympic flame ceremony and for the 28 young

[ Page 4040 ]

athletes who represented B.C. at those ceremonies, were there any conditions or stipulations attached to the grant?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, because that goes back a year and a half I think I would like to take the question as notice and bring the information back to the House.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no supplementary, hon. member, to a question which has been taken on notice. It would be proper and correct for the hon. member to pursue the point when the answer on the original question comes back to the floor of the Legislature.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order then, sir.

MR. KING: The only problem I have with that ruling from the Chair is that undoubtedly other questions relating to the matter would require notice also. That time could be saved if I were allowed to give those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member. While I appreciate your point of view, it's a matter of fact in question period that when a question has been taken on notice I must accept that and there can be no further discussion of the question at this particular moment.

SHELTER ALLOWANCE FOR HANDICAPPED

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Human Resources. On March 4, the minister announced that some recipients of handicap pensions would qualify for an increased shelter allowance, starting July 1. In view of the fact that the necessary order-in-council was passed March 7, according to my information, why are the application forms for this programme only now being received by HPIA recipients?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I've had inquiries from people with respect to these forms, people who received them some several weeks ago. So I don't just exactly know what the member is referring to. I'll get the information and report further.

MR. GIBSON: I have a supplementary. When the minister is replying, if it's taken this long to get the applications out and many people were expecting to receive benefits as of July 1, could the minister at the same time report on exactly when he sees the first payments, including the retroactive payments, going out to the recipients?

ICBC CLAIMS INVESTIGATION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General instructed the RCMP to conduct an investigation relating to certain claims against ICBC made by Surrey Dodge Ltd. and Leslie Wood?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the hon. member's question, the RCMP's investigation concerning the Surrey Dodge matter which has been referred to in this House is already underway, following meetings between ICBC and the commercial fraud section of the RCMP.

Secondly, the RCMP is also continuing an investigation concerning the Leslie Wood matter that was referred to in the House, and the purpose of these two investigations is to determine as to whether or not claims have been properly paid.

MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate the'-answer, but will the Attorney-General tell us whether he or his department gave instructions and when those instructions were given? Were they verbal or in writing? What were the terms of reference?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Dealing with the Surrey Dodge matter, Mr. Speaker, that was as a result of the direct negotiation between ICBC - I've forgotten the name of the individual - and the superintendent in charge of the fraud squad, and that was on Monday, yesterday.

The other investigation is a continuing investigation. I could not tell you the day it started; I do not have that information.

MR. MACDONALD: Has the Attorney-General of British Columbia in any way instructed the RCMP in respect to these investigations he's talked about? Have you done it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, they were already underway, Mr. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: So you haven't done it?

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Nothing from your ministry?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've made it abundantly clear they were underway.

MR. BARRETT: From Monday. He said Friday

[ Page 4041 ]

and you haven't done anything.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No. I'd like to respond, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) defer to the hon. Attorney-General?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): One more time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let's just have this perfectly clearly understood. First of all, the Surrey Dodge matter, right? The Surrey Dodge matter has been referred to in this House. An investigation is underway, and that was following a meeting directly between ICBC and the commercial fraud section of the RCMP. That was Monday, July 25 - that's correct.

The second point is the one dealing with the Leslie Wood matter. That is a continuing investigation and that investigation started before. I couldn't tell you the exact point of time.

Now the third one, I think - what the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is talking about - is the one dealing with the alleged breach of confidentiality of documents and as to whether or not that constitutes a breach of the Automobile Insurance Act. That is one aspect.

Dealing with that aspect, there was a meeting between an ICBC official and the RCMP on Friday last. The second aspect of that transaction is the right of a private citizen to expect that information which is required of them by statute will remain confidential. In that situation, the RCMP have considered that without specific instructions there is no place for them in this confidentiality issue at this time.

So we have three points before the House. They have advised ICBC that if they wish further action taken on the matter of confidentiality, they will need to make their submission directly to this ministry. I would say this, Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. members: if the Insurance Corporation of B.C. concludes that it can't deal with breaches of confidentiality through its own internal procedures and it deems it necessary for this ministry to specifically request the police to re-enter the situation, that request and the material in support should be sent to the officials of this ministry for their consideration and attention. But we've got three situations here.

MR. BARRETT: No instructions from you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I've made myself abundantly clear on the three points, sure.

LEVESQUE LETTER REGARDING

MINORITY LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

MR. WALLACE: At last! Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. With regard to a letter from Premier Rene Levesque to each of the provincial premiers, suggesting that French children moving from Quebec to the other provinces be guaranteed a French education in return for a guarantee of Quebec that English children moving to Quebec could go to English schools, has the Premier had an opportunity yet to discuss this in cabinet? If so, is he in a position to tell the House the decision from that discussion?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): No, the cabinet meeting is Thursday morning, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: The Prime Minister of Canada has stated that he hopes the provincial premiers will discuss. minority-language education rights at their meeting next month in New Brunswick. May I ask the Premier if he intends to take any steps to ensure that this issue is in fact on the agenda for that meeting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the informal agenda is already set up and it provides ample opportunity for questions regarding provincial rights, national unity, the debate that is going on in Canada and any points brought up under those headings.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier mentions national unity, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier has given any further consideration to a request which was made by letter to him by a citizen suggesting that a resolution be introduced into this Legislature supported by all parties and reaffirming our belief as a Legislature in the concept of national unity and reaffirming our support of national unity.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I take it for granted that members, when they become members of this Legislature, believe in Canada. We take certain oaths and make certain commitments. It goes without saying that we're all Canadians. You are suggesting we consider passing a resolution?

MR. WALLACE: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to avoid any confusion. Party leaders in this province all received a letter from a gentleman, Mr. Ben Pires, who subsequently wrote to all the newspapers in British Columbia. He made the suggestion that it would be appropriate during the debate on national unity for all the party leaders of this province to support a resolution in this chamber. I just wonder if the Premier is considering doing that.

[ Page 4042 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I get many suggestions from many members of the public on how we can show some leadership in what is a very important debate in Canada. I do recall not one but several letters of a similar tenor - and that may be one of them - dealing with proposed resolutions. I must say it is a consideration, although in the light of so much work before us it hasn't been actively pursued at the moment. Now that you have brought it to my attention I'll review it.

DUTIES OF DIANNE HARTWICK

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. On July 12, the minister took as notice my question with relation to the duties of the Provincial Secretary's executive assistant in his department. I wonder if he could now tell the House what the specific duties of Dianne Hartwick are in his department.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'll table the information in the House some time this week or early next week.

ASSISTANCE FOR HOG PRODUCERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Inasmuch as at their meeting last night the swinebreeders were faced with the decision to ship their hogs out of province for processing because of lack of federally inspected killing plants in B.C., will the minister make up the freight differential for those swinebreeders until such time as there is an adequately inspected plant available for processing?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, my staff has been in communication with the hog producers both yesterday and after the meeting last night. We are considering a number of alternatives in assisting the hog producers. As you know, the Intercontinental Packers have closed up and there is an excess of hogs on the scene. We will be carrying on further discussions with them and giving any assistance we can.

B.C. HYDRO

STUDENT BUS PASSES

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications with regard to the programme of bus passes issued to students at UVic. Since this programme, I understand, is to be discontinued by B.C. Hydro, and since the board of governors has strongly supported the programme and the administration of the system was completely paid for by the Alma Mater Society and subsidized by the university, could the minister tell the House why B.C. Hydro is not prepared to honour the passes this year?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the rider response was not very great, but I'll be recommending that the directors of Hydro take another look at the programme.

COST OF BUDGET SPEECH

MRS. DAILLY: To the Provincial Secretary. Six months ago I asked the Provincial Secretary for the cost figures on the printing and distribution of the 1976 budget speech, which have always been released by former governments, certainly within a much earlier period of time. Would the Provincial Secretary tell the House why she is holding back these figures?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To my knowledge, I'm not holding back anything. I will pursue the question for the hon. member for Burnaby North and see if the information which is on the order paper is ready.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. GIBSON: I want to deal during the first part of this afternoon with the letter recently sent by the Premier of the province of Quebec to the Premier of other provinces in respect to educational opportunities for minority language groups and, specifically, the situation of British Columbia in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be permissible if the member can show how it ties in with the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Education.

MR. GIBSON: Well, it certainly does, Mr. Chairman, because the proposal of the Premier of the province of Quebec is that British Columbia's educational institutions should be changed in certain ways and, as a quid pro quo, the province of Quebec would be prepared to make certain concessions in respect of theirs.

At the outset, I want to congratulate the Premier and the minister - the Premier as the recipient of the

[ Page 4043 ]

letter and the minister as the directly responsible person - for the caution with which they have been handling this missive which is unquestionably a time bomb in terms of national unity in this country.

There was a very interesting article in the Vancouver Province this morning, written by Mr. Peter Cowan out of Quebec City, in which he points out how this proposal of Premier Levesque can "serve both the ends of separatism and the end of not obtaining protection for minority languages in educational terms in our constitution." In such terms, this House and this government should look at it with a great deal of caution.

I think it is worthwhile, Mr. Chairman, to step back just a moment and examine Mr. Levesque's negotiating strategy with the rest of the country. He is working on two fronts. The first front is economic, with his famous sovereignty association concept. Mr. Levesque, above all, is following this course. He is suggesting to the people of Quebec and the people of Canada that he is a reasonable man making reasonable proposals, and therefore if the rest of Canada can't accept them they must be unreasonable people and therefore that's , evidence that Quebec should separate.

On the economic side, Mr. Levesque says: "Let's get along together after separation in a continuation of a mutually beneficial economic relationship." Of course, if the rest of Canada is, in his terms, reasonable, he wins and Canada loses and separation takes place, because the polls in the province of Quebec leave little doubt that there is a strong feeling within that province for a much looser association. On the specific option of sovereignty association, a recent poll in the riding of St. Jean showed 47 per cent in favour of that option. That riding, I might say, has voted with the government of the day in every election since 1939. It's a bell-whether riding.

On the other hand, with this reasonableness strategy the Premier is able to say: "And if you don't buy that then you're obviously not reasonable people in the rest of the country and we should be separate because we can't deal with unreasonable people."

I draw that example in the economic field because it's the clearer of the two basic questions - the other one being linguistic. I want to compliment the Premier of British Columbia, and the Premiers of all the western provinces, for seeing that proposal as it is, for rejecting it, and for saying: "We will not in any sense guarantee this kind of a relationship. We will not assist you in validating your referendum in that way.

The second, far more dangerous area, is in the linguistic area, and specifically in the education side of minority language. Mr. Levesque is putting forward the very seductive proposition that we can solve all of our problems in this country if we have one French-speaking province and nine English-speaking provinces. This is very attractive to many people, because it says at once, no more bilingual problems. We don't need to worry any more about those cornflake boxes; we don't need to worry about air traffic control and the signs in the airports and shoving French down our throats, and all that kind of thing. But the other side of that seductive proposal, in my opinion, my prediction, if it's bought, of Levesque's proposal of a unilingual Canada~_ one French and nine English provinces - to me is no more Canada in the short or the long run, Once you have that de facto separation of linguistic ghettos or enclaves then you have inevitably down the road a coalescing of national feeling within delimited territories which says this must be a nation or a country of its own. That's the plan.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'll get into that question later on, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) .

We now have the latest offer of Premier Levesque in the field of education, again acting as a reasonable man. The committee will be aware that Bill 101 has been introduced in the legislature of Quebec with respect to the language of instruction in the educational system of that province.

As it currently stands, the proposal is that as to minority language education - which is to say English - in that province, only those will be entitled to attend anglophone schools whose parents did so within the province of Quebec. In other words, persons moving to Quebec from other parts of Canada who happen to be anglophones would not be entitled to send their children to English-speaking schools.

This restriction has led to a good deal of concern within that province and I think all across the country. So Mr. Levesque has come up with a proposal which he now makes to us in British Columbia and to all of the other provinces, and some of them have reacted too quickly. Premier Schreyer, for example, has reacted too quickly.

Mr. Levesque says: "I'll make you a deal. My deal is that if you, province X, will agree to extend full minority education to your minority language group, which in all provinces but Quebec is French, then I will enter into a reciprocity agreement with you. For your nationals, so to speak, from your province, when they come to Quebec, they will have reciprocal privileges."

Mr. Levesque is a superb chess player, Whichever way you go on that one, if you aren't careful, he wins. If the provinces say: "No, we won't go for that, " Mr. Levesque can say: "You see, they have no sympathy for the French language in the rest of the country. They are not reasonable people we are dealing with. Another small reason for separation."

[ Page 4044 ]

If the other provinces say: "Yes, we respond to your initiative, Mr. Premier, " then Mr. Levesque says: "You see, the idea of sovereignty association works perfectly well. We can get along with the other parts of Canada as long as we don't have to deal through that national government in Ottawa, which is really the group causing all the problems in this country. And as our province, our nation of Quebec, we can deal perfectly well with British Columbia, just as we can deal with the United States, just as we can deal with France."

If they can do that in the educational field, Mr. Chairman, which is surely the foundation of concern to most parents in governmental terms across this country, he wins a very large point. So if he's in a no-lose situation on this particular hand of poker, how can the government of British Columbia respond?

I want to, in a very humble way, give my own advice, which is as follows. I think the province of British Columbia should respond to Mr. Levesque and say to him: "Language rights are a part of the Canadian birthright. We will not see children who belong to minority language groups used as bargaining pawns." Point one.

But then, point two, we must say on our own initiative - not on Mr. Levesque's initiative, but on our own - "We are prepared in British Columbia to do that which is right by our official minority language group in this province in terms of education." And that which is right in my view is the provision of a certain number of French-language schools in those areas of the province where even a relatively small concentration of French-speaking Canadians exists. There might be - and I would defer perhaps to the superior statistics of the deputy minister sitting across on this subject - half a dozen such locations in British Columbia. Certainly they include Maillardville and, I would think, one or perhaps two other locations in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Perhaps Terrace, perhaps other locations.

But the essential thing about these schools - and let me make this very clear - is not that they be bilingual schools but rather that they be French schools. Bilingual schools are looked upon, and to a certain extent properly, by French-speaking Canadians as a means of providing unpaid teaching assistants to teach English-Canadian children how to speak French well. The intention of bilingual schools is among other things to teach French as a subject rather than to teach subjects in French, and there's every difference in the world between those two things.

In making this recommendation, Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the provincial government should bear the differential cost. Far from it, I'm suggesting that the time is now ripe to say to the federal government: "We want you to very considerably increase the funding you give to the provinces to provide that which is right in terms of minority language education, whether it be in British Columbia or Quebec or anywhere else in this country." The formula - the minister may have others - I would propose for consideration would be a federal payment on a pro-rated basis of all of the class time spent in actually instructing in the minority language, plus all of the what you might call extra costs associated with teaching regular subjects in the minority language. There will certainly be extra costs, not so much so in a mature system like the anglophone education system in Quebec, but certainly in a brand new system as any francophone system in British Columbia would be. There will be heavy start-up costs of the preparation of programmes and materials and textbooks and the importation of teachers and transfer costs and housing costs; and on and on goes the list. It seems to me that this is a proper charge upon the national government which, among other things, must bear the main responsibility for national unity.

I want to congratulate the minister on his press release of July 19, in which, I believe, he made a significant move in this direction. In this particular release - which has only one spelling error, in the last sentence - the minister speaks in positive terms of immersion programmes in secondary schools for students wishing to become fluently bilingual. That is a good start, I believe, Mr. Chairman, and a significant advance. I hope he will go further, and quickly. I want to tell him that in my opinion, public opinion is ready for this. I want to quote from a resolution passed by the council of the municipality of West Vancouver. I'm sorry I don't have the date on this but it was in mid to late June. It was a resolution moved by Alderman Lanskail and it spoke of national unity in various terms. But they spoke especially in item 2:

"We call on the province of British Columbia, together with Quebec and all other provinces, to ensure the reasonable opportunity for educational instruction in either French or English to those who desire it.?"

That to me is a good statement of principle, Mr. Chairman, and I congratulate Mr. Lanskail and the West Vancouver council for that.

Parents groups are springing up around this province. I won't read much of it but I will draw the minister's attention to a report in the Vancouver Province of May 9 of this year where it notes:

"French classes are being added in schools throughout B.C. School officials are overwhelmed with federal money from a government committed to Confederation." And later on:

"But B.C. is light-years from student

[ Page 4045 ]

bilingualism; despite a massive effort by many parent groups and the almost endless streams of cash from Ottawa, only a minority of students are affected. Most Greater Vancouver pupils still don't study French until grade 8."

I think that's probably an accurate reflection of the situation except I would not refer yet to that which we are receiving as an endless stream of cash from Ottawa, and I'll get into that a little bit further.

Another parent group is the North Vancouver Parents for French who wrote on April 20 to the North Vancouver School District 44, stating, among other things, in their letter that they have two goals: one, that French instruction for a minimum of 20 minutes, four times a week, be included in the curriculum of School District 44, from kindergarten to grade 7. That's certainly a small request in my view, Mr. Chairman. The more important request is the second one: that School District 44 establish a minority language school wherein 75 per cent of instruction is in the minority language. And this is the crucial step, this establishment of a school where instruction is predominantly in the minority language, with an opportunity for children to participate in that from kindergarten through to secondary years.

My examples are coming mostly from the North Shore because that is the area I represent. I would refer the minister to a survey that was taken last fall by a group called The Parents for the French Language - this time in West Vancouver - in a submission to the West Vancouver school board, as follows:

"We would like to draw the attention of the West Vancouver school board to the need for a programme of French instruction from the kindergarten level to grade 7 inclusively. The need has been clearly established through the responses received from a survey questionnaire sent to parents in October, 1976. We received 1,170 responses of which 112 were negative, six impartial and 1,052" - just quickly, that's something like 90 per cent, isn't it; - "in favour of having a French programme established." Public support is growing.

A Gallup poll reported in The Vancouver Sun of June I I of this year and this is a national poll, not just British Columbia asked the question: "Do you think if public school pupils learned both English and French, it would tend to a better understanding between French- and English-speaking Canada?" The answer was 70 per cent yes and 25 per cent no. Again, a quite overwhelming expression of opinion.

La Federation des Franco-Colombiens has been lobbying for provincial government action. I'm not certain whether they met with the Minister of Education or not, but I'll just quote a brief submission here. The person speaking is Jean Riou, who is director-general of the federation. He makes this statement:

"B.C. is by far the worst of the provinces in recognizing the rights of French-Canadians. There seems to be total indifference by the government and by most British Columbians to the rights and problems of francophones. We aren't asking for the moon, just a basic recognition of our existence and, for a start, few schools where instruction is given, say, 80' per cent in French."

The action plan that the federation suggests suggests a francophone school in Vancouver, for example, and another in the lower Fraser Valley. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I make this distinction between a bilingual school and a francophone school. It's the francophone schools that are required if we are to provide to minority-language citizens in British Columbia that which is provided by the province of Quebec even after the passage of Bill 101, which many British Columbians are protesting.

I have a copy of a telegram here that was sent to the Pepin-Robarts commission by a man by the name of Harold Daykin, and I endorse these sentiments he sent to me:

IT SHOULD BE THE RIGHT OF EVERY CANADIAN FAMILY TO HAVE THEIR CHILDREN EDUCATED MAINLY IN THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THEIR CHOICE. THE ONLY CONDITION SHOULD BE THAT THERE ARE ENOUGH YOUNG PEOPLE AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL TO MAKE UP A CLASS, AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL TO MAKE UP A SATELLITE SCHOOL, AND AT THE POST-SECONDARY LEVEL TO MAKE UP A WING OF THE COLLEGE.

So there are some proposed tests. The minister may feel that the hurdles are too high or too low in those suggested by Mr. Daykin, but the concept is that above a certain level, above a certain critical mass, there should be an entitlement as a matter of right.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I stand in this debate at this time to advocate these things is not because it is going to make an enormous difference to the British Columbia educational system. As a matter of fact, the report put out by the federal government entitled A National Understanding, subtitled, The Official Languages of Canada, states - and think that this was as of the 1971 census - francophones in British Columbia amounted to only 38,000 in number. So perhaps one might say that we're not really talking here about very many people. But we are talking about a subset, a British Columbia subset, of 8 per cent of the people in Canada who within their particular province happen to be a part of the minority language group within that province. I would represent as well that because we are talking about a relatively small number, that should make it easier for British Columbia to be in the forefront of

[ Page 4046 ]

reform and progressiveness and generosity among the English-speaking provinces of this country.

I am persuaded that if we do not so fashion our education system as to make English-Canadians feel at home in the province of Quebec and French-Canadians to feel at home in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere, the dangerous drift which has been underway for some years towards a separated country will accelerate under the undoubted skill and charisma of the planning of the Premier of Quebec, in such a way that within a very few years we may in fact end up with two separate countries.

The first line of defence against this great danger for all of us is the educational system. As I said earlier, it might not make too much immediate and apparent difference to the educational system of British Columbia. But I say to you, sir, it will make an enormous long-run difference if the end result is a contribution in some small measure - some small trickle or rivulet into the stream that eventually washes the country apart - when, in the alternate, we could, simply by gathering up our resolve and by the expenditure of relatively little money, most of it hopefully to be recovered from the federal government, shine forth across this country as a beacon of a province prepared in its educational system to extend educational language rights to the other official language in this country on a par with any across Canada.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, there are selfish reasons for us doing this. There are selfish reasons of the psychological and other benefits that we obtain from being in Confederation as it is now made up. There are the selfish benefits of recognizing that we are in a country that is going to have a bilingual administration in many companies and in many areas of government, and it is essential that British Columbians should receive the kind of training that will allow them to participate in a way that is more or less on a par with other provinces that do have better opportunities than we presently have for the development of a good education in the other official language. But the single thing that is going to be the acid test as to how British Columbia's performance is measured is whether or not we will be prepared, in areas with a minimum critical mass, to provide not bilingual schools but genuine francophone schools for the other official language minority.

MR. MACDONALD: No Gaelic, eh?

MR. GIBSON: I want to get on to the question of other cultures, Mr. Member. Unfortunately my time is up at this stage, but I will return to that subject later. If we open a Gaelic school I hope that you will be the first principal and address the students on the loudspeaker system every morning. It would be an inspiration, sir.

In the meantime I just wanted to, in terms of our two official languages for the moment, make this representation to the minister and wish him and the cabinet every wisdom as they ponder how to respond to this latest initiative of the separatist Premier of Quebec.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to talk on another subject, but I think the Liberal leader has raised a point which I touched upon in the oral question period. I certainly believe that it's an issue under the Minister of Education which British Columbians should think about now and think about relatively quickly, because it is my impression, to use a hackneyed phrase, that it's later than you think.

The Liberal leader and myself attended a national conference at York University a few weeks ago where this very issue was central to just about all the discussions that went on. As far as many of the French-speaking Canadians at that conference were concerned, it is already too late. They feel that they have tried all the options. They have been rebuffed by the rest of Canada and now it is only a matter of time until they, by one mechanism or another, find their way towards independence and a better system as they see it. I don't agree that that is necessarily the case but I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the sensitivity of the francophone to the language issue runs extremely deep. As an uninformed westerner I was most impressed by the depth of feeling expressed by the francophone whenever the issue of language came into the workshop discussions and other informal private discussions around the lunch table or at coffee breaks or whatever. It had to be the most striking, pervasive, repetitive element that came up time and time again in these discussions.

While I well recognize that the Liberal leader understands the national scene a great deal better than I do from his previous experience in the national capital, as a landed immigrant coming to this country and spending only a few years in the east and most of my time in the west, I must say my immediate reaction to the Levesque proposal was to say to myself: "Well, what's wrong with that?"

Isn't this very central to the francophone's feeling of not being a part of the total nation called Canada? I think I have mentioned to the House already how one very fluent, bilingual French-born Canadian told me how he had spent two years in British Columbia and every day he was here he felt that he was not living in his own land, even though he is fluently bilingual and had no problem whatever with the fact that most people in British Columbia speak English.

So my immediate response to Mr. Levesque's proposal was to say to myself: is this too high a price to pay if, in fact, there is some acknowledgment by western Canadians or, in this particular instance,

[ Page 4047 ]

British Columbians, that the minority French-speaking groups in a province such as British Columbia are entitled to go to French schools if, in fact, we are so uptight about the possibility that English-speaking children moving from British Columbia to Quebec will have no option but to go to French-speaking schools. I've listened carefully to the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) comments and I realize that, in a sense, we're between the devil and the deep blue sea. If we don't accept Mr. Levesque's proposal, then we are looked upon as being completely indifferent to the importance of French and English education within a two-nation concept in a united country.

I would suggest, with respect, to the Liberal leader that it isn't quite comparable to the argument over the economic link which the Quebec Premier is seeking if and when independence is established. It would seem to me that the economic link is a much less reasonable request than the very fundamental and sensitive matter of language which, after all, is the basic way in which you communicate with any other human being, whether he is Canadian or any other nationality.

I feel that all that we should try to attempt in Canada is to provide access to education and public services to the individual in the language of his or her choice. If that sounds too simplistic a definition of what this bilingualism controversy is all about, I apologize. It seems to me that while the methods that have been used to deal with the language issue have sometimes been ill-advised in the extreme, I thought we were generally agreed all across Canada that what would be fair and right in a country where the two founding peoples are French-speaking and English-speaking would be simply that - to provide access to education and public services in either of these two languages, as chosen by the individual.

The Liberal leader mentioned that he would favour the concept of having French schools in British Columbia where French-speaking populations reside. That again, to me, seems eminently reasonable and appropriate. Again, of course, I have to come back to the question: is it not that which Mr. Levesque is asking - not that French-speaking children moving to British Columbia from Quebec would be at a bilingual school but would, in fact, be at a French-speaking school where all the education and the conversation goes on in French? I think if I was a French-speaking Canadian born and raised in Quebec and I was told by the rest of Canada that I was a partner in the two-nation concept, I would expect my children to have that privilege - to be educated in French if they happened to move to one of the other nine provinces.

I would agree with the Liberal leader in particular that the Levesque offer is not a simple matter to respond to. I know it has got many ramifications. I would just end my comments on this note. I was never more impressed by anything than by the fact that the French-speaking delegates at the York University conference are not about to wait much longer. I'm not sure they're about to wait at all.

The preponderate message they gave to me is that it is already too late and that the kind of dialogue that was established at that conference should have been established five or 10 years ago. The most articulate spokesmen, and those who are very sensitive about the language issue, have already made up their minds that they can't expect any kind of reasonable response from French-speaking Canada and they are determined to chart their own course and the way they see best to achieve the kind of independence and right to make their own decisions about language and culture, and everything else, in Quebec. If that sounds very negative and final, I hope to be proven wrong. I would suggest, and one of the reasons that I raised the matter in the oral question period was that I hope the Premier of this province, professing as he does to believe in the concept of Confederation and to support it, he made the statement today that it surely goes without saying that we all believe in Canada or we wouldn't be elected members of this chamber. I take that statement to mean that he doesn't have to write it out on a piece of paper and put it on the order paper, as I suggested. That's fine with me. All I need is the Premier's commitment to try and preserve Canada.

One of the only ways in which it will be preserved as a nation is to come to some compromise agreement with the Quebec government. I agree it must be within the national context and with full discussion with the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet, as well as the other provinces. But some kind of compromise has to be reached. While the Liberal leader thinks that Ed Schreyer made a premature decision to look at the proposal, I happen to think that we can't dilly-dally too much longer. We have two options. We can take the position that the French-speaking Canadians already think is immutable, namely, that we as English-speaking Canadians are not sensitive or sympathetic, and get it out on the table and say, that is our position, so perhaps we should leave the universe to unfold as it should.

Alternatively, I think this minister and our Premier should, at the earliest opportunity, come forth with some public statement as to how they view the kind of contribution that British Columbia can make to gain some confidence of the Quebec government. Let them know that we are indeed not indifferent and we are willing to look at some reasonable agreement that would grant French-speaking children some kind of guarantee that if they move with their parents to British Columbia, they will have the opportunity to be educated in French.

[ Page 4048 ]

Mr. Chairman, I thought we would be continuing debate on ICBC today and I prepared some questions which are not related to the ICBC issues that have flourished in the House. I'll be as brief as I can; they're very simple.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): We'd like to do Education. I think that's the ministry.

MR. WALLACE: I do want to talk about education later but I thought I was....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not talk about education now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha! I bet you'd love that.

MR. WALLACE: I understand that the official opposition wishes to try and finish ICBC and then get back on to education. I'm not trying to be awkward. I could do either; I have lots of notes.

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I want to question the minister, particularly with regard to bad cheques that are issued in payment of ICBC premiums. Mr. Bortnick stated earlier this year that a person who issued a bad cheque last year might well be in a position to do the same again this year. I'm quoting the Victoria Times, March 29,1977. The same statement reports $1 million in rubber cheques received by ICBC since it was set up in 1974, and the fact that there is still $986,000 outstanding in bad cheques from the '75276 year, together with $180,000 left over from the corporation's first year. The comptroller, Mr. Gordon Adair, had also revealed that there is about $4 million still uncollected from the finance plan which was offered customers under ICBC. Mr. Bortnick was also reported to have said that a system of checks was instituted so that a person who had not completed payment cannot finance his premiums this year, but said it was still possible that someone who issued a bad cheque last year could obtain insurance this year and pay for that with another bad cheque '

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to find out how the system is functioning in relation to: (1) the amount of bad cheques that have been issued in total for which the government has not recovered the funds; (2) what system of checking is in place to try to minimize the recurrence of such bad cheques; (3) whether or not this is in any large way related to the continuing computer problem. It was reported in the press back in February that there are approximately 10,000 persons who write dud cheques on the pre-financing plan and cannot be traced because the computer apparently lacks the capacity to trace these individuals. That's one question.

Mr. Chairman, the ICBC staff was reduced by 120 people. That was the figure quoted by Mr. Bortnick.

I'm wondering whether the reduction in staff has in any way impaired the corporation's capacity to control this business of payment by dud cheques?

Regarding the $4 million uncollected from the time payment plan, can the minister tell us how much of that $4 million has since been collected or what is a reasonable figure we can assume will be collected?

I have one other question on the financing aspect. Mr. Bortnick had stated that there would probably be a surplus this year; he didn't quote a figure. I wonder whether the interest being paid by the government of British Columbia on the loan of $181 million from ICBC will be included in the stated surplus. I suppose if it is, one would have to ask, since it's just shifting public money from one pocket to the other, has there been any consideration given by ICBC to foregoing the part of its income derived from interest on that loan?

I would like to ask just briefly, Mr. Chairman, about the latest decision regarding Mr. Ralph Gillen. As the committee will probably remember, back in March Mr. Gillen, vice-president of ICBC, had his term of office extended for six months. At that time it was stated that MacMillan Bloedel, with whom he was also employed, was interested in having a larger allocation of Mr. Gillen's time to the work of MacMillan Bloedel. Mr. Gillen at that time was being paid an annual salary of around $45,000 and it was stated that MacMillan Bloedel was making up the difference between the $45,000 and his normal salary from MacMillan Bloedel.

I just wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on plans regarding the position of vice-president of ICBC. I presume, if this was March, that the six months ends in September. Is the minister in a position to tell us whether Mr. Gillen will be likely to continue? One of the questions I asked the minister in oral question period earlier on this year was answered by the minister to the effect that good vice-presidents were hard to find and that Mr. Gillen's abilities and experience were particularly valuable to ICBC. I don't dispute that at all, but I just wonder whether the minister has made any renewed attempts to find other suitable candidates for the position of vice-president since it still doesn't seem quite right that a large corporation such as ICBC should have a part-time vice-president who in the other part of his time is employed by a large private corporation, particularly when, as a vice-president of ICBC, Mr. Gillen is being paid in effect by public funds in a monopoly situation, at least of ICBC being the only purveyor of compulsory insurance. I wonder if the minister could make some comment on that.

I have two quick points on ICBC that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman. One of my constituents unfortunately had a death in the family and had to travel to Saskatchewan. In the course of travels outside of British Columbia, his vehicle was hit by a

[ Page 4049 ]

deer and the vehicle became a write-off. At this point in time he was a thousand miles from Victoria. Without going into all the details, the police investigated the accident. The car owner sought the assistance of an adjuster in Saskatchewan who informed him that there was no way he would act on behalf of ICBC. But the person who was in the accident ordered a new car at the time in Alberta and took delivery of the car. A day later he contacted ICBC and was told that the registration of his new vehicle must be made in British Columbia. So this gentleman, already under some stress and strain as a result of his family problems and the family death in the first place and then an accident on top of that, had to turn around and drive all the way back to Golden, British Columbia, to get his new vehicle registered.

Now I don't know all the details, and the committee wouldn't want me to go through all this long description of the details, but there seems little doubt that he was advised, on contacting ICBC, that he must register the vehicle in British Columbia and only in British Columbia. What happened was that, as I say, he drove back into Golden. It meant another matter of four overnight stops in a motel and gasoline for an extra thousand miles and so on.

The gentleman who wrote to me makes the point. "We feel that this is callous, indifferent bureaucracy at its worst and that there should be a more rational way of coping with situations like ours." And so I bring this to the minister's attention. Many people may well be involved in accidents outside of British Columbia who have a car as a write-off. It would seem that the difficulties they encounter in buying a new vehicle create this problem I've described where the car owner, even if he hasn't reached his eastern destination, has to turn around and drive back into British Columbia to register the new vehicle and then turn around again and set about his original journey. It does seem incredible.

The last point I want to make quickly is also regarding the apparent callous and insensitive attitude that ICBC frequently shows. I'm again referring to the experience of a constituent who just simply received a letter. I'll read it very quickly.

"About a month ago we received a letter from ICBC stating that we owed $29 for underpayment. No explanation was given concerning the reason for this. Over 30 attempts to contact ICBC by telephone were made but the lines were always busy. We then contacted the agency that sold us the insurance and we were told that our 1976 policy had been correctly prepared and was paid in full. The agency attempted to phone ICBC with no success and so wrote a letter of inquiry which is yet to be answered.

"Today we received a nasty little note from ICBC stating our insurance would be cut off in 30 days if the $29 was not paid."

I won't finish the rest of the letter, which is not quite so relevant. To quickly describe what had happened, Mr. Chairman, this gentleman paid his 1977 insurance and suddenly received a demand note that he was underpaid on his 1976 insurance. When the matter was investigated, the owner found he had a Volkswagen van which in 1976 was classified as a 3. ICBC felt, apparently, that it should be upgraded, and unilaterally reclassified the vehicle as a 6. As a result of the reclassification, there would have been on the 1976 insurance an additional $29 payable. The fact that it had been reclassified was completely unknown to the owner. All he got was this very impertinent letter just boldly and without explanation saying he was $29 underpaid. The additionally disturbing thing about it is the fact that the coverage in question was collision and comprehensive coverage. It was not the compulsory coverage, and yet the second letter from ICBC threatened to cut off the 1977 compulsory insurance unless this $29 was paid within 10 days.

We often talk in this House about the evils of the monopoly. If anyone was in private business, competing with other providers of the same service, and you wrote a letter to your customer without an explanation as to why you had figures out that $29 was underpaid, and threatening to cut off some other important service, I don't think, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the minister agrees, you would stay in business very long. You would have a very irate customer who might or might not pay the $29 but would certainly know where to buy his insurance next time, and it certainly wouldn't be from ICBC. The constituents of mine paid the $29 to avoid any further controversy, because apparently the vehicle should have been regraded in relation to class.

I should say in fairness that as a result of the hassle they did receive a personal apology from Mr. Bortnick, but I don't think that Mr. Bortnick should have to go around issuing personal apologies when there's obviously some very inadequate administration within the system. The guy at the top always carries the buck and always carries the can for whatever his inferiors do that is wrong, but this kind of complaint is not an isolated one. I just bring it up at this time because I think the issue should be aired in principle rather than zeroing too much on the specific details of this one complaint. It is a complaint one reads about in the newspapers. I've other letters from other constituents. I just wonder if the minister can tell us what changes in administration we can anticipate which might prevent this happening in the future.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'll just go back over these items in reverse. With respect to the last item raised, I heartily agree with the member. I

[ Page 4050 ]

think that a private firm wouldn't begin to consider the kinds of letters that ICBC has sent out in the past. I've seen one or two of them and they shocked me just as they do you. I can tell you I have gone over some of the form letters myself in the last few weeks to be certain that this kind of thing isn't repeated. I think they are insulting. I think what's been done in a public relations sense has been very bad, so I can assure the member that in the future, more polite notices will go out.

As far as reaching ICBC is concerned, I'm distressed that an individual can't get through on the telephone. That means we don't have enough lines. You should be able to reach them at any time of day. I can make inquiries if in fact our lines are overloaded. We should get more people dealing with customer complaints, because ICBC is there to serve the public and certainly not to be brusque or insolent.

With regard to the person who' had the problem registering a new car, unfortunately that's not an ICBC regulation or difficulty. This is for the motor-vehicle branch - they register it. Again, I think it is just shocking. I have no apology and I just think that we shouldn't do these kinds of things. What ICBC does have is a telephone service that anybody can call, collect, anywhere in North America at any time and have the phone answered and information given. Had the person known and called that number, then they would have perhaps had better advice. I don't know that they would have, but they don't have to make the decisions unilaterally in their own location and then struggle to make contact with ICBC afterwards. They can put a telephone call through right away. That's why we came out during this past year with that booklet, which was supposed to be like a layman's insurance policy giving advice on this kind of thing. That's the only improvement the individual could have made. I must say some of the regulations with regard to registration of vehicles, obtaining Plates and so on, is something which I have no more sympathy with than the member.

He asked about Mr. Ralph Gillen, who is not vice-president of ICBC but who is vice-chairman of the board. Mr. Gillen has been ill for the past two and a half months. He has a fairly serious condition which I would describe to the member outside the chamber; he has not, therefore, been at ICBC at all in the last two and a half months but we're hopeful that he will regain his health and will be able to give service again to ICBC. I also agree with the member that the temporary situation we had in sharing executives is only interim; it is not satisfactory and ICBC will be recruiting new senior executives. Since the last time I was reporting on ICBC and this kind of questioning we have taken on a senior vice-president in charge of finance, data processing and, of course, we have a new senior vice-president for Autoplan. I have given an indication that the House will have an opportunity to, I hope unanimously, support the change in legislation that will not require a minister of the Crown to be president of ICBC and that will pave the way for a civilian president of the corporation. Presumably then we will have an opportunity to seek another executive.

With respect to the income of ICBC, as you probably know, ICBC has a very large investment fund which is really composed of two trust funds. One trust fund is the lump sum of money that is there on behalf of people who have incurred accidents and to whom the corporation owes money. That's the trust fund and there is income from that trust fund. The other large trust fund that is managed is what is called the unearned premium. You collect all the premiums at the beginning of the year and then you hold that money and it becomes transferred during the process of the year from all of us who are insured and may incur an accident to those who actually do have an accident and therefore become a claimant against the corporation.

So you have income from those two sources. That income last year was some $30 million, and of the various surplus funds that the corporation had after all the expenses have been paid off, this was approximately 40 or 45 per cent of the total income, so it is a significant part of the income of the corporation and not something which properly belongs to the government. It properly belongs to that corporation and the people who are insured.

We did have this unusual situation where there was $187 million worth of general taxes put into subsidization of the automobile. Many people disagreed with that policy but at least everybody understands it. I personally don't think the automobile should be subsidized. I don't think it ever should have been subsidized. I think that of all things in society that which least needs a subsidy is the automobile. In any event, the automobile has been subsidized in British Columbia to the extent of $187 million. That comes out of general taxes. There it is.

The member raised the problem of bad cheques in data processing; there's a whole series of related questions here. Perhaps in answering them I could just give a little description of how it works and then you can see how the answers to your questions fall into place. I would like particularly at the outset to extend an invitation to the member and to any other members of the House who have never visited ICBC.... I don't know whether it is appropriate to make invitations to come and discuss claims, in view of the debates in the last two or three days, but I think that the members would find it very instructive to see how the second largest Crown corporation of the province operates and particularly to see how the data processing system operates as the second largest of its kind in western Canada.

[ Page 4051 ]

What that computer operation has is some 20 million bits of information. It contains every insurance transaction of the corporation since its inception, every claim, every motor vehicle by registration and by licence number, the driver's licence number of every individual, the number of points against each individual, the number of claims that have been made. There's a very elaborate system of cross filing, .

Therefore, if an individual writes bad cheques or owes money, he doesn't get lost in the sense that you no longer have records of whether he has got funds due. If he's moved away from the province - he's just a drifter and he's gone somewhere else - then it's probably that you'll never catch up to that individual, but if he stays in British Columbia and he continues to hold a driver's licence and wishes to own an automobile and register it and have it licensed and drive it, then it's there on record that he owes money and sooner or later that individual will have to pay. So of those who remain in British Columbia, eventually the money they owe will be collected.

If a person defaulted on the finance plan and he's moved, well, the only way you can catch up to that person is to send somebody physically chasing him. There are sheriffs and if a person owes, then it's within the law that the licence plate should be physically collected by a sheriff, Somebody has to go out and find him. Therefore there are people who owe money to the corporation but where it's not practical to collect either the licence plate or the money.

MR. WALLACE: How much is outstanding?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can get a figure, but the figures that you got from Gordon Adair would be perhaps somewhat reduced since they were originally given - I don't know what your date is. We are gradually catching up to people.

I might say, though, that the amount the corporation is owed in bad debts, relative to the total premium income, is a very, very small percentage. There are few businesses that operate on less than 1 per cent of bad debts. Over a period of time, I suspect that ICBC's bad debts will be considerably less than that.

At the time of the renewals this past year, a system was put into place where those who had defaulted on the finance plan last year would not be given the privilege of financing again this year until they paid up from the previous year. We set up a system where before people had a chance to go on the finance plan, the agent had to telephone into the corporation and determine whether or not the record of the applicant was clear. Now this produced several columns in Jack Wasserman and a tremendous amount of misinformation in the press - that there were 120 people sitting around, or whatever it was, and more; that the renewals would never get through - but really, there were very few problems. There was not nearly the staff that was claimed in the papers and there were no hang-ups and everybody got their renewals through on time. I haven't seen the figures on the end result of the system of checking that was introduced, but I think that considering the size of the operation, the number of bad debts, even at this stage, is remarkably small.

Now there's every prospect in the future, when one goes to the cyclical billing system, so that you don't have this tremendous volume of business in one month every year where you're renewing something like one million policies all at one time, that it will make possible far greater efficiencies in tracing down the registration itself and getting the data accurate in the first place. The way it is now, if the agent bills incorrectly then, of course, the person who pays doesn't find out until that piece of paper and a million of them land in ICBC at once gets programmed. Because we had to completely rewrite the computer programme last year, it was some months before people eventually caught up to the mistakes the agents made, and somewhere around 18 per cent of all renewals that come in from agents' offices have significant errors in them. This past year, an incentive bonus was given to the agents - $1. 5 0 a renewal - if they got the information right, and this has reduced the number of errors. So there isn't the programming problem, there aren't as many errors this year, arid notices will go out somewhat sooner than last year.

Eventually what will happen is that when the cyclical billing system comes in it will be possible for people to take out their insurance, get it right, have it placed on the computer, all in one operation, and do it hopefully by telephone, the same way as you would place an airline reservation now through your travel agent. That's not possible until the cyclical billing system comes in.

MR. WALLACE: When is that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, it's scheduled to come in next year, but there are a lot of startup problems and I wouldn't want the House to be under the impression that it's absolutely firm that we can get the cyclical billing system introduced by next year.

When it is introduced, it will pave the way for major efficiencies in the renewal system. It will allow the staff to be reduced to do the same job, and many of these really annoying errors will be removed. Again, the higher efficiency should make it possible to have lower insurance rates.

Still and all, I repeat what I've said in the House before: the overall insurance rates in British Columbia now on the average are about 60 per cent of what

[ Page 4052 ]

they are in Alberta, 58 per cent of what they are in Ontario, and around 40 per cent of what they are in Quebec. We're well below the other provinces. We're not as low as Saskatchewan and Manitoba. We're taking a look at that. They do have subsidized plans but there may be further efficiencies that are possible in the future.

Both the Conservative member and the Liberal member made reference to the initiative of the Premier of Quebec. As the Premier said during question period, that's a matter that the cabinet will have to consider and presumably will be at the next meeting. It's also a matter that I'm sure will be considered at the first minister's conference which is later this month in New Brunswick. So that that's a matter of total government policy and not for Education.

We have a particularly difficult problem in British Columbia satisfying all the ambitions of the francophones because they are so few in this province - 1.7 per cent places us right at the bottom except for Newfoundland which has even less. Ambition has to be tempered by practicality. What can we do when our numbers are that small? I think the people from Quebec who have given any thought at all to what the spread of francophones is across the nation understand what the situation is in British Columbia and realize that within the practicalities of our system we're doing the best we can to accommodate their wishes.

I would say, however, that if you get into a nationally financed system - I'm talking about the federal government where you raise money in all the provinces equally by taxes and then you distribute that money for some special French programmes where on the basis of population there would be 1.7 per cent in British Columbia and 34 per cent in New Brunswick - our taxpayers don't get a very good deal out of it.

We have to think, too, of the kinds of systems that might be set up in this country that would give our taxpayers at least an even break. We've not done terribly well on some of these programmes, and a lot of it is our own fault. But we've made a little progress this past year, about $100 million worth. It's not everything but it's not a bad start.

Just to reply to the two members, the government obviously will consider this and there will be some announcement of government policy. From the point of view of the Ministry of Education, we're delighted to accommodate the wishes of all Canadians according to the practicalities of our present system. It's tempered only by our wish in this province to get a good deal for our taxpayers and get as much money for the education of our people as we possibly can.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): I'd like to talk for a minute about education, if that's appropriate under this minister's estimates, which I'm sure it is. It seems to me that one of the critical areas in a student's education is the grade 9, 10, 11 and 12 period when adolescents are learning to sort of leave the nest, as it were. This is the awkward age when they haven't really set goals as to where they would like to go and they have not had enough experience or enough exposure to really know what they want to do. Some students do; some students have an excellent idea of where they want to go. Many others can only relate to the glamorous jobs that they know of or the things within their constituency that they see.

I'd like the minister to give consideration to having a time in, say, June or July of every year when those students who aren't quite sure of where they want to go are able to experience a six- or eight-week work experience where they have a work-and-learn balance so that they can go out into what they consider a field of endeavour such as retailing or transportation or health care or manufacturing or lumber or agriculture - just to see what it's actually like.

We get a situation now where a student goes through school, may have decided to become a chartered accountant or a computer programmer, spending the entire time during their education system. Then after six weeks or six months on the job, they find out they really weren't very happy with it anyway. At some point there, for those people for whom there is great indecision, we would have a break so they could go out and actually have just a little experience, earn a little money and also have a little practical look at what's happening.

There are some things in this field. You have the Junior Achievement and you have the Junior Chamber of Commerce showing people around, but a one-day tour doesn't necessarily answer all the questions, So many times a student runs off into what we consider glamour professions or things that look to be interesting, only to find out that even the most glamorous professions become rather dull after a while. It would require some co-operation; I don't know if any political science students ever come here and sit and watch, if maybe they want a job here. But with the co-operation perhaps of labour and of industry, and certainly of the Workers' Compensation Board - and if there was ever anyone to throw sand in the gears of any project like this, that would be the WCB - I think in the long run it would save us some money because students might have a better idea of the goals that they really want to achieve. Those of them who were thinking of dropping out of their education and yet have the ability and the brains to continue on and take on a real challenge, might see that challenge. And there are those who might find much greater happiness in something that they experienced in that time period. So perhaps it's time some of them had a chance to face life's realities just

[ Page 4053 ]

briefly before they make their final decision as to where they want to go. Thank you.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member has an excellent suggestion and we're doing all that we can to encourage work-experience programmes of every kind in the high schools, universities and colleges. I'm happy to say there are programmes going on at each of these levels. For example, there is a work-experience programme going on in the high schools here in the Victoria area. In some regions of

British Columbia where we have particularly good shops, students will build a house every year, sell i " t and use the money to get materials to build another house the following year. So one can do practical things within the school itself or one can have these programmes whereby the students spend part of their day actually working at the job. We have provision in the ministry for accommodating these things from an administrative point of view; our trouble is that we haven't got it organized nearly as widely as we would like it to be done. I'm not dead sure how we in our ministry go about helping to broaden the organization. All I can tell you is that the principle has been established and there are what you might call pilot programmes working in a number of areas of the province.

Now in addition to this, there is a brand new programme that is being introduced here in British Columbia. It's the place in Canada where this novel approach is to be started; it's being done in conjunction with the Canada Manpower. What it is is a computer-based career-counselling programme called "Choices." There are five schools for them on the lower mainland, there's one here at Esquimalt and there is going to be participation of one college. In any event, the general idea is that a student can come in and have all the career options made available to him in career counselling and then, via computer a=s to Ottawa, they can get answers to all kinds of q ions about the career itself. Then, he can have information on the availability of positions at the present time, should he decide to make this his career opt'l So this is a very much more sophisticated method of career counselling. Of course, it doesn't get at what the member was suggesting, namely the actual experience of doing the thing.

I would personally like to see, Mr. Chairman, far more emphasis on spreading the school year through the year. At the present time, we turn something like 55,000 post-secondary students and 150,000 high school students out at the same time during the summer, which produces a theoretical 200,000-plus people on the job market all at once and the job market just isn't that elastic. It can't expand to sop it all up at the same time. We do have in British Columbia some programmes going where high schools....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Pardon? No, no. There are 15S, 000 in our high schools who are over the age of 15 who are theoretical members of the labour force, and about 55,000 more who are beyond high school but under the age of 25 and they are still in their educational period. And all 210,000 of those are available in the summer. Have I explained it properly?

In any event, the work force can't expand in this .day and age. It's not that flexible. These 210,000 people can't be taken up all at once; a lot of them get left out. The government helped out by putting up $32 million, I think, this past year to provide jobs for them in the summertime, which doesn't nearly cover the special needs. If we were to be running our universities, colleges and even high schools during the summertime so that more of these people were completing their education and perhaps some of them were making themselves available on the job market in the fall and spring, I think we'd have a very much more efficient economy. Not only would we be utilizing our educational facilities better but we wouldn't be dumping everybody on the job market at the same time. We're looking at that. Maybe the universities should be offering cut-rate tuition at the universities during the summertime in order to attract more students. Maybe colleges ought to be doing that. This business of just laying everybody off in the summertime from an educational point of view makes neither economic sense nor social sense.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, we are faced this afternoon with a very generous minister, a minister who gives long and precise answers to all questions asked. We certainly appreciate that on this side of the House.

The minister mentioned that there were, in his total figure, around 200,000 in grades I I and 12 and post-secondary. I think the minister might check that figure that he gave us, if in fact there are only some 200,000 children in the school system.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are 525,000 in the school system. There are 155,000 over the age of 15 who are in secondary schools.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to an issue that we have had some discussion on in the House. The minister was most generous when he was answering the ICBC questions of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . The member for Oak Bay asked some specific questions and the minister answered those questions. I hope that he will be able to answer some of the questions that we've raised over the last number of days on this particular question, and also during question period.

[ Page 4054 ]

One of the things I noted, however, that the minister said - and I think we should all take note of this - was that we are not going to see car insurance subsidized. We won't have ICBC subsidized. But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we have found that the minister does not seem to worry when ICBC subsidizes Surrey Dodge or when ICBC subsidizes First Charter Financial Corporation. Interesting! Interesting development,

Mr. Chairman, that seems to be the attitude: it's only money. Bottom-line at certain times and not so bottomline at other times. Let me give you an idea. They are very bottom-line when it comes to some of the treatment. . . . When I say bottom-line I'm talking in terms of watching the dollars spent and watching the dollars come in.

This is a letter from a person who is going to Ottawa for a year. Listen to what he says:

"By the way, I'll be cancelling my ICBC. What a ripoff! I'll probably not only get short-rated, but my 18 per cent - or whatever -safe driver discount on both cars goes down the drain. That discount was supposed to be a refund of last year's overcharge, but by moving to Ottawa to serve my country they will pocket last year's gouge and then probably gouge me over again" - not probably, for certain - "next year since I won't be eligible for a discount because I won't have been a resident of B.C., an ICBC customer, the preceding year. This, instead of a direct rebate."

You see? You note the way you treat this chap. He didn't have the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) interceding on his behalf.

I'm somewhat concerned also with another area that I have found where ICBC shows a bottom-line instinct. I'm making a suggestion that the minister has to look into this. It shows a bottom-line instinct without really looking into what they might be getting into. Here is a situation, and I would hope the minister could pay particular attention to this because it is something quite new to him and it is something he should take back to ICBC.

I heard of a case the other day where a Harley-Davidson frame and motor-casing were sold for $750 at the ICBC lot in Surrey. That's interesting - $750. 1 asked around to find out what that would be worth, the motor-casing - not the motor - just the frame and the motor-casing. It was stripped down - no tires, no nothing. I asked around as to what that would be worth. Oh, $150.

Why would somebody buy a motor-casing and frame for a Harley-Davidson from ICBC for $750 when it's only worth $150? 1 was told that probably the reason one might buy it for a resale would be so that one could strip down another Harley and put it together because you get the serial number on the motor-casing. It's worth $150; they sell it for $750.

That is not serious bottom-line thinking in my view. A 1976 Corvette totally stripped.down, stripped right down in the same centre, sold for $2,500. What's it worth? A totally stripped Corvette is worth roughly $700. Mr. Chairman, these kinds of situations should be carefully thought about by the minister, I think, in terms of this total picture of ICBC that seems to be developing. Bottom-line thinking in most cases but not always bottom line.

I have in my possession, as the minister has, claim after claim after claim where there is a very dissatisfied customer. I have, for example, a very large file here where a person had a fire claim will the ICBC. They have written to the minister; they have written to the Premier; they have written to everybody in the province whom they felt might give them some support. They have been told that they should have put forward certain forms and then they have been told something different. Meanwhile, because it was deemed that maybe they had claimed too much, they have forfeited, to my understanding, all their property because of the mortgage that was due for $34,000 a few months ago and which was put off until July 20.

There is where ICBC is showing their real instinct of really being tough about claims. But, Mr. Chairman, they don't seem to have that same kind of instinct when it comes to the claims of Surrey Dodge Ltd. and Leslie Wood. Incidentally, Leslie Wood is short for First Charter Financial Corporation because that's where Leslie Wood owed the money and that's who was to get the claim.

I would just like to canvass this just a little bit because I think really what ICBC is trying to do, it's trying to satisfy the needs of his new government. One of the ways that I suggest that this new government has shown how they feel about the situations that we brought to light over the last two weeks, the situation of three claims that should not have been paid.... But then ICBC reads the paper -all the clerks, all the staff and all the officers read the paper - and what do they see? On July 14 they see: "Kerster ICBC Intervention Part of an MLA's Job, Says Bennett." That's the Premier; they know that. When they see that name, they know that's the Premier, down there at ICBC. "Premier Bennett said Wednesday that Social Credit backbencher George Kerster was only doing his job as MLA for Coquitlam when he intervened recently in claims made by constituents against the Insurance Corporation of B.C." Well, of course, the Premier knows by now -and I am sure he must have known then - that the constituents were the same people or part of the same people as is the MLA for Coquitlam.

It goes on to say: "Bennett said the opposition can charge that ICBC disobeyed its own rules but it's hard to charge an MLA with doing his job." That MLA interceded on his own behalf in both claims. He

[ Page 4055 ]

bought a car from First Charter Financial Corporation and they financed it.

There's a good friendship between him and the first officer of that company, so there's quite a relationship there. As far as the Surrey Dodge claim is concerned, he is on a note for Surrey Dodge. Therefore I suggest to you that every dollar that comes into Surrey Dodge is a dollar less that he has to pay on that note, yet the Premier protects him. He said: "Kerster has done nothing that any good MLA would not do to help out his constituents." I would hope that no good MLA on this side of the House would pull that kind of activity and expect to be condoned by the Leader of the Opposition under any circumstance, because I'm sure that would not occur.

He went on: "The former Premier, Dave Barrett, was defeated in Mr. Kerster's riding because he did not work for his constituents." Right. Not that kind of work, never. But the former Premier of this province, and for years the member for Coquitlam, has been a tireless worker for constituents, for poor people, and for ordinary people in this province.

Mr. Chairman, all this intervention on behalf of the member for Coquitlam brings me to the suspicion that there's far more to it than the member for Coquitlam. It brings me to suspect that what we are really looking at here is interference from the highest level in this province - interference that should not be acceptable. Let me quote today's Victoria Times:

"Last night the Minister of Education was commenting on the former Attorney-General's statements. Do you know what he said? 'He sits there with instant, perfect judgment, ' McGeer said. 'He knows the member, Kerster, is guilty.

You, of all people, a former Attorney-General, stand up as a prosecutor, judge and jury."

Mr. Chairman, we've made charges that have not been answered in any way, shape or form. The Minister of Education stands up and makes this kind of statement where he knows full well that all he is doing, again, is covering that situation, covering the tracks for the member for Coquitlam. It's really not a point of whether the member for Coquitlam is guilty. The member for Coquitlam is small potatoes in this situation. I'm suggesting that the Minister of Education is the guilty one for having not read the files, admitting not reading the files, admitting that he knew the files had been tampered with last May and that there were some charges to be levelled at the member for Coquitlam and some of his activities and some of the activities of people paying claims in ICBC, and yet he sits back and does this kind of a cover-up job.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): He's guilty of wilful McGeerness.

MR. COCKE: Wilful McGeerness it has become today, which is 20-20 ...

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): It's called haughty disdain.

MR.COCKE: ... other sight, without sight.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in all sincerity, not that this case has been moved to another arena, interestingly enough, that there is nothing more we can do other than possibly go over the situation and review the facts. I'm sure my colleague from Vancouver East would like to do a little bit of that. Before I do that, and because we have totally lost confidence in this minister, I have no other alternative than to show our loss of confidence in this minister. By virtue of his lack of answers, his continually throwing smokescreens, I have no alternative but to put forward the following resolution: "That the salary of the hon. Minister of Education, as provided in vote 158, be reduced by $1 to the sum of $23,999."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The resolution appears to be in order. The hon. first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I won't be long. The issue raised by the member for New Westminster is what we're concerned about here today. The fact is that the money has been paid out on three claims that should not have been paid out, and the Minister of Education has totally condoned the activity that has gone on in relation to those claims.

When we raised these matters, as we should as responsible legislators, the minister should have said: "That's something that bears looking into. If there's fault it ought to be corrected, and if there's something the public doesn't know that it has a right to know, it ought. to be exposed." Instead this has been the minister of coverup and the minister has been filing papers in this House which have been either false - in some cases - or misleading, and then giving the House the excuse: "Oh, I don't know. I don't know anything about the facts. I refuse to see evil. "

"See no evil, " says that minister. "I won't read the files. I will just counterattack the opposition and talk about character assassination. I'll create such a fuss that nothing will be properly brought forward that ought to be considered by this committee." Now I'm just going to say a few more words on one of the other claims. But I want to say we've had a police investigation ordered. Well, I'm not sure. It was never ordered by the Attorney-General, although he was requested, according to the story in today's Times, by the internal audit to order that investigation. He didn't do it.

[ Page 4056 ]

What was the attitude of the hon. member for Coquitlam toward this very thing in terms of the Wood case? Well, the hon. member for Coquitlam gave an interview in early July to Chris Gainor of The Vancouver Sun.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the motion relating to the hon. Minister of Education and not the hon. member for Coquitlam. I'll just caution you.

MR. MACDONALD: That's right. But it's the condonation of this conduct that is the reason for the motion, Mr. Chairman. Here's what was said then about this police investigation. He's talking about the Wood file. "Mr. Kerster said the RCMP file had been closed six months before he visited Bortnick." That's the famous occasion when he sat there for six and a half hours in the office. " 'Somebody sat on the file for six months, ' he added. He said he strongly objected to a suggestion that ICBC's fraud division look into the matter before a final decision was made."

So here we have it now. The RCMP are investigating particularly the two Wood accidents which the minister condones. That's why I'm keeping on the question, Mr. Chairman. What happened to that investigation by the RCMP? It was a perfectly valid investigation into two accidents based upon serious charges that in both cases ICBC had been lied to and in both cases there had been intoxication by impairment by drugs. But the member for Coquitlam comes into the office of Mr. Bortnick and he strongly objects that the RCMP investigation should continue. Those claims that added up to $1,720 should never have been paid. They were paid out, and the minister is defending that course, Mr. Chairman.

Here is the police report after the second of those two accidents on February 25. Hansford was the so-called anonymous hitchhiker. Wood didn't know his name but he was a drinking pal and they had been on drugs together, according to the RCMP report. Here is the police report. Delta police, 7:30 a.m., after the second accident -Hansford, cut and something on the forehead. Extremely intoxicated.

Mr. Chairman, here is a minister who defends the paying out of $1,720 on that claim and the other one, where Wood on February 21 said: "My car has been stolen." The RCMP investigate the situation and they find that Wood and Hansford and another guy called Cornell had been high on drugs together and the car hadn't been stolen at all; the keys had been passed from one to the other and the accident took place. The statement of Wood which I have in my hand clearly shows that with relation to both accidents he tied. It clearly indicates there was good reason to believe there was impairment at both accidents, and yet following the intervention of the member for Coquitlam, which this minister defends, $1,720 of ICBC money was paid out after six and a half hours of berating poor Mr. Bortnick in the ICBC office. "I won't leave until I get answers." I call that berating.

Those claims, Mr. Chairman, should never have been paid. We have a system in this country whereby somebody who has a doubtful claim is allowed to go to court. That's what should have been done in the Wood case. Wood should have been asked to sue if he wanted to pursue the matter. He should have been asked to sue and then on examination for discovery he would be asked: "Did you lie to the corporation about that accident? Did you lie to the corporation about the second accident? Where were you during that night? Were you not impaired at the time of both accidents?" Either one of 'them would be grounds for rejecting the claims out of hand.

But there was another factor in the situation. Evidence in a civil case would have been most useful, both to ICBC and in any police investigation. Wood would have to come forward and answer questions about these probably criminal acts that have been committed. But that has been stifled and the member for Coquitlam comes into the office of ICBC and says: "I strongly object to a continuation of the RCMP investigation."

The other factor was the one referred to by the member for New Westminster. This was no longer a claim of Wood to get the money out of ICBC, it was a claim of the finance company which had financed the Bronco up to $8,000. They wanted to get what they could for the repairs and then sell the Bronco to somebody else after they had seized it. Who intervened for the finance company? That was why Mr. Kerster was in the offices of ICBC. It is very strange why $1,720 was paid out at all. But it's even stranger why $1,720 was paid out when Wood owed the corporation $613 on a judgment.

The minister, by the way, talks about the expense of getting that judgment. If he is listening to what I am saying, and I'm not sure he is, he might take into account the fact that you don't need a lawyer and a big law firm to go into the small claims court to recover that kind of judgment and run into a lot of unnecessary expenses. A capable person in ICBC can do that perfectly well. That is the way the small claims have been set up.

Let me refer to why that judgment was paid out and not deducted from the cheque. I refer first, Mr. Chairman, to the memorandum of Mr. Winfield, the lawyer for ICBC, of December 16, which has been referred to. I'm referring to it just on the one point, because the other facts have been established relating to this statement of Mr. Winfield's. The minister, incidentally, said bravely in question period that he was going to table Winfield's present explanation, but

[ Page 4057 ]

he didn't do that. He said he would table it but he didn't do it.

This memorandum says: "After a member of the Legislative Assembly intervened directly with Mr. Bortnick, we were instructed to close the file and not to pursue the judgment." That is very significant, because the claimant was undoubtedly Mr. Wood. Leslie Wood was the insured and he was the only one. Nothing could be paid to the finance company that was not due and owed to Leslie Wood. If you owe somebody $100 and they are pressing you to pay it, but that other person owes you $20, you deduct and pay them $80. But ICBC didn't deduct the $613 following this intervention.

First Chartered Financial Corp. on June 2 sent a letter to Mr. Bortnick at ICBC, in which they said: "We have been more than patient and now must act." A copy of that went to the minister and to Mr. George Kerster, the hon. member for Coquitlam. That letter was replied to. I know the minister won't read the file, but that letter was replied to by Mr. Rogan, the public information officer of ICBC. He made it very clear to the finance company that they were not entitled to anything that Wood couldn't claim. He said this at the end of his letter: "I am sure that you will have received legal advice prior to a decision to issue a writ." Mr. Rogan was saying: "We don't think this is a good claim. Go to court if you want to make this claim." He goes on: "I would point out that the corporation's financial obligation is solely to an insured motorist and does not extend to any other individual or group who may have a financial interest in the insured vehicle."

The insured motorist was one who already owed the corporation $613. The Winfield memorandum very strangely says that we should not pursue the judgment and, very strangely, the finance company got the whole $1,720 without deduction of that judgment. I've looked at the regulations of ICBC and I find nothing that gives the finance company that has a lien on the car any superior rights. There is a special endorsement you can get that gives them some rights, but there wasn't such a thing in this case.

Not only, Mr. Chairman, did this minister pay $1,720 out through ICBC after it was drawn to his attention by that letter from Mr. Butler, the friend of the hon. member for Coquitlam, but he failed to deduct that judgment. He has given this House an explanation: "Oh, they were separate files."

There is not a businessman in this House who, when some money is owed to them, would pay out a greater sum without deducting what was owed to them. Mr. Chairman, if you say the claim should have been paid and they should not have been paid at all, you have got to say that that judgment should have been deducted. Oh, it's only $613 belonging to ICBC which they will never recover. I know the judgment sits there. I know you are not bound by the Winfield memorandum. You can pursue it, but it's a dry judgment. You'll never catch Wood and collect $613 from him. The opportunity to collect it was there when you were paying out his claim.

I don't think that is a simple mistake, Mr. Chairman. I don't think for one minute that was just a mistake. I think that it was the direct result of the six and a half hours and the intervention in a case where the minister was closely related to the finance company that was to receive the money. It was all paid out. It wasn't even paid out in a joint cheque to Wood and First Chartered Finance Company. It all went to the finance company. They were in pocket, as a result of either gross mismanagement or intervention or both, $1,720 which Wood could never have succeeded in obtaining had he sued for it.

That's mismanagement. Yet if this minister had come in and said this was a mistake, I suppose we wouldn't move this motion. But throughout all of the days, we've been given political flim-flam and counter-charges, as if we had done something outrageous by bringing this kind of a payout to the attention of the public.

So I entirely support, Mr. Chairman, the motion that's been moved. I don't think the Premier was right in his answers to this House that MLAs can intervene, even when they're personally interested, in ICBC. I think to accept the principle - and if you don't support this motion, that's what you are accepting - that MLAs can go to ICBC with something in which they're interested themselves.... That's what the Premier defended. That's what this minister defended and it's totally wrong. The minister's answers haven't been sufficient. His answer that he hasn't read these files that have been drawn to his attention and in which he knew there was tampering, he says, last May, is an impossible explanation for a responsible minister to bring to us in Committee of Supply.

Ministers here are supposed to answer questions. Here, when ministers give answers on oral questions, they are supposed to stand behind their answer and know something about it. They're not supposed to say: "Oh, somebody who might be in a difficult spot has given me a memorandum. Here it is." Or: "This claim number is similar to the case you're discussing and disproves your case." And later: "I know nothing about it." That is irresponsible on the part of a minister and I say that throughout this whole debate, everything that has happened has been condoned by this minister. If the House does not support this motion, then we are, in fact, as a House and as a committee, condoning what has happened in these three claims. That should not be allowed to happen, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind all hon. members that whenever we are discussing or debating

[ Page 4058 ]

an amendment, the scope of debate is much narrower than it is in the question in total. I would remind all members to regulate themselves accordingly.

MR. BARBER: I hope you won't find me out of order in a few moments when I read into the record a short poem of four lines in honour of the present minister. I'm sure it will be in order and I hope it may amuse even yourself, as it certainly has those of us who have come across it.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that it's any wonder at all that members of this House have lost confidence in the Minister of Education. It's becoming increasingly clear that members of his own cabinet have lost confidence in the Minister of Education. Is it any wonder at all that members of the public have lost confidence in the man's ability and even, in some sense, his credibility, as it relates to his performance in handling this increasingly embarrassing political mess into which he's found himself placed?

One has to ask, Mr. Chairman, why a man of his obvious intellect and experience would find himself in, and get himself into, such a mess. One has to ask why a man of his intellectual calibre would produce for the people of British Columbia such a grossly substandard performance as a minister. And I think one of the reasons why that's * happened, Mr. Chairman, is because he's been set up.

The Minister of Education, in my view, has been set up by the Premier in this specific regard. In my view, the Premier made a very callous and, indeed, a very shrewd political decision to put that particular member of the coalition into that particular portfolio responsible for ICBC. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the minister is in this mess because the Premier determined a year and a half ago that that particular member is expendable. The Premier realized that in a coalition of car dealers this kind of thing was bound to happen. The Premier realized that ICBC was inevitably going to be one of the targets of some of the selfish and greedy people of this province. The Premier realized that the former Liberal leader was politically expendable and therefore should be given the time bomb which ICBC, under this administration, has become. The Premier has set up the Minister of Education because, as the Chairman well recalls, the present Minister of Education was once the leader of the Liberal Party.

It's obvious that the Premier determined that the Liberal party is expendable and the former Liberals are useful in a very narrow and selfish way. We've already seen in this House, Mr. Chairman, allegations by members of it that the minister's performance in regard to Torresan Market Consultants Ltd., is, to say the least, questionable. We've heard over and over again for two weeks that this grossly substandard performance regarding the handling of these bizarre

ICBC claims is totally unacceptable to many members in this House and, obviously, to a majority of the public. We've seen, Mr. Chairman, a performance that borders on malfeasance within this minister's administration. I think we've seen that he's been set up for political reasons by the Premier, who finds him perfectly expendable because he used to be a Liberal. Once having served his purpose in coalition, he has no further political future.

I wonder if it's possible, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has read the minister's book. As I told the minister a new nights ago during the education part of these estimates, I've lately been reading the book Politics in Paradise, available at $7.95 from Peter Martin Associates, publishers. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if one of the reasons that the Premier finds him expendable is because, having read the book, the Premier has read what the minister once said and presumably may still believe about Messrs. Dan Campbell, Robert Bonner, W.A.C. Bennett, Evan Wolfe and others whom the present Premier obviously respects and takes into his confidence. If indeed the present Premier has read the minister's book and, in particular, the comments throughout about the notorious administration of the Premier's father, maybe that's one of the reasons why he finds this particular minister expendable and why he has given him such nasty duties to perform, which he has indeed performed in such an abysmal fashion.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier decided to use the Liberal Party in order to form a coalition and, having formed it, decided that individual Liberal members of the coalition are politically expendable, all of which suggests - and this is leading to the four-lined stanza that I would like to read into the record - that one should, perhaps, be inclined to feel just a little sorry for the minister. It may be that he didn't realize he was being set up. It may be that when the Premier gave him the job of handling ICBC in a coalition party full of car dealers that he didn't realize what he was getting in for. It may be that we should feel some human sympathy for the plight of the poor Minister of Education who, for all his academic confidence and competence, appears to lack the common sense which guides many other members of this House, at least on occasion.

With apologies to Wayne Richards, I should like to read into the record four short lines in honour of the good minister. They go as follows:

Little Willie caught McGeer;
Stuck ICBC in his ear.
Daddy said, "Now fancy that
We've made a Patsy out of Pat."

If the press wishes autographed copies they will be available from the author outside in the hall. (Laughter.)

I agree entirely with my colleague, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) , that anyone who

[ Page 4059 ]

votes for this minister's salary is voting for incompetence, bungling and possible malfeasance in office. I suggest most strongly that the Premier of this province set him up and that he is politically expendable and that the Premier, totally absent from these debates and totally withdrawn from any defence of this minister, realizes with secret joy the discomfiture of the Minister of Education. I think the Premier's political ends have been served. As far as the Premier is concerned, the man is expendable. As far as many members of the public are concerned this minister's credibility is already spent. For those reasons and all sorts of obvious other ones, I too will be joining in the motion to reduce this minister's salary by a dollar.

MR. LEA: It's strictly for incompetence that I support the motion. He is an incompetent minister. He doesn't know how to run a corporation, basically because he has never run one before. It's rather sad that the Premier would put that minister in a position of having to make businesslike decisions when the minister has never made a free-enterprise buck in his life.

The minister, to my knowledge, has never been in business. He has always taken tax dollars as his wages. When was the last time the minister ever made a free-enterprise buck? I doubt whether he has. The minister has been subsidized by the taxpayers of this province throughout his working life and would have us believe, because he desires to be businesslike and a businessman, that he is. But we all know that he is not. He is an academic and a politician and has never, to my knowledge, ever been a businessman. And he has never been involved in making businesslike decisions for the business world.

It has been proven in his administration of ICBC that he will allow what can only be determined or only be deduced as political chicanery within that corporation and has allowed people within that corporation to be browbeaten by a political colleague into making decisions that should not have been paid and to pay out tax dollars that should not have been paid out.

The minister could only be described as a business fraud. He is not what he claims to be - a business person - and has completely bungled through incompetence his handling of ICBC. This motion should be supported by every member of this House. He's an incompetent minister, and that's why I support this motion.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): 1, too, rise to support this motion. I suppose that many of the speakers have expressed that they have lost confidence in the minister. I can't recall back to the point when I had confidence in this minister.

It's a very serious question that we are debating here, but I can't help but say that this minister reminds me of Don Adams. He's the person who played Maxwell Smart in that once very popular TV series. Every time this minister sees himself in trouble he says: "Would you believe?" We have brought to his attention a group of documents and we have seen this minister try to wing it every day, trying to fake it, because he hasn't done his homework. He's been popping up and treating the opposition lightly and with contempt as he gets himself more and more mired.

Then he gets up and he says: "Would you believe that I knew that the NDP had documents months ago and that I had a complete report done at that time? Would you believe that?" No, Mr. Minister, we don't believe that.

Then he gets up and says: "Would you believe that I knew that the NDP had documents months ago and that I had a complete report done at that time? Would you believe that?" No, Mr. Minister, we don't believe that. Even you couldn't have mucked things up the way you have done if you had known in advance that some of these documents might have gone out, as you alleged, at some previous time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't mean you, Mr. Chairman; I'm sorry about that. But people would certainly not believe that.

This minister on another matter a year ago came up with outlandish figures about the cost per pupil at Notre Dame University. He said: "Would you believe that the cost of educating a person at Notre Dame University is X thousands of dollars, way higher than the regular coast universities?" Information was brought forth to discount that information, to show that it was false information. Then, a year later, he did the same thing; he trotted out the same information. It got a headline. He was reminded that this was no more true today than it was a year earlier. But, Mr. Chairman, he went ahead. He gave this information. Then it took him a full week to admit . . . there were contradictions of this information about this price per pupil, which was out of line in the order of over 100 per cent, did he finally make a bit of a retraction. I don't know if it ever got into the papers. The damage was done; his purpose was served. He said: "Would you believe it?" Of course, people are willing sometimes to believe this. So he's used this as part of his attack.

MR. LEA: He's never made a free-enterprise buck in his life.

MR. NICOLSON: Whenever this minister has found himself in difficulty, he's tried to raise a

[ Page 4060 ]

smokescreen. He's grabbed at any~ type of information that might suit his purpose. I think he certainly knows where he's going, but it's a very sad direction in which we see him moving.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know where he's going.

MR. NICOLSON: So, as I say, I do not recall back to when I had confidence in this minister. It's not a matter that I've just lost confidence in this minister recently. But for that reason, I will certainly be voting in favour of this motion and I would urge all government members to consider this as well.

MR. LEA: He's never made a free-enterprise buck in his life.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to record my support for the motion that is before the House to reduce the minister's salary. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition does not put forward this kind of motion lightly. I think it is a serious matter when a motion to reduce a minister's salary is put forward in the House. This is a motion of non-confidence, Mr. Chairman, the traditional method under the British parliamentary system that the opposition has for highlighting the incompetence, or worse, of ministers of the Crown, and drawing the focus of public attention to the fact that members of the House no longer have confidence in the ability of that minister to continue, to administer his department in an effective manner that should command the confidence not only of this House, but of the public generally. I submit, Mr. Chairman, there is no question in the public mind in British Columbia today that the Minister of Education, holding responsibility for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, has done an exceedingly poor job of discharging his responsibilities with respect to that corporation. The minister, over a period of some weeks in this chamber, has - very reluctantly, I might add - released bits and pieces of information which demonstrate he knew of two claims before the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that were of questionable nature. They were of exceedingly questionable nature on the basis of the evidence that was available to him and certainly on the basis of the evidence that was available to ICBC itself. He had access to the file; he had in his possession memos that indicated that officials of ICBC had questioned the validity of claims put before them and that questioned their legality and their propriety. That minister eventually admitted that he knew of this - I believe it was in May - long before the matter was ever raised by the opposition in this House. Did he commission an investigation? Did he look at the evidence and find the seedy circumstances surrounding these two claims warranted an investigation by the RCMP? Did he notify the Attorney-General? The answer is no.

Even at the point where he found that a colleague, a backbencher, the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , had been involved in a most unusual fashion in making representation to the chairman of ICBC, Mr. Norman Bortnick, spending six and a half hours sitting in his office, indicating he would not leave that office until the decision was made, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) apparently saw nothing untoward about that. Apparently it didn't enter his academic mind that has been finely tuned at UBC's laboratories, Mr. Chairman, that that kind of conduct might be construed as undue political pressure by a member of this large majority government.

Still he did not level with the House, Mr. Chairman. He did not demand or request of his colleague, the Attorney-General, an investigation.

He has tabled documents in the House, Mr. Chairman, that proved to be questionable in terms of their validity. The minister tabled a document that leaves a question as to whether or not perjury was committed by an individual - an affidavit filed in this House in direct conflict with a statement issued by that same individual at the time the claim was filed. This is extremely serious because if there's to be any dignity associated with this institution ' if there is to be any respect for every member's obligation to parliament in British Columbia, if there is to be any public confidence not only in the minister but in this chamber as an institution, then surely we must know and we must demand that documents tabled and statements made are above question and reproach in terms of their veracity. The minister, Mr. Chairman, has called all of these traditions into question. There is ample evidence which the public has at its disposal contained in newspaper stories every day to demonstrate the total boondoggle that this minister has led the House into, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know what the Premier of the province perceives as his duty but I suggest that if he took his duties more responsibly and accepted his responsibility as the first minister for the conduct of every cabinet minister, it would not be necessary to put this motion before the House. I think the Premier should have taken action not only to demand of the minister that an investigation be called long before this but, in light of the minister's demonstrated incompetence and bungling and reticence to answer questions and in light of the fact that he has tabled questionable documents and told questionable stories, he might have been well advised to ask him to step aside until this whole matter was reviewed and fully investigated by an appropriate inquiry.

I would say that the Premier is certainly no stranger to inquiries. He should know how to commission one by this date of his tenure of office,

[ Page 4061 ]

because that is, after all, alleged to be British Columbia's largest industry - the inquiry commission in British Columbia. By the time this government is finished commissioning investigations into their own conduct, the people of British Columbia indeed will be fortunate if there is any time left to run the affairs that the government was elected to administer.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that I certainly find no great joy in having to support this motion because it is a serious thing when the competence and the integrity of administration within a minister's department is questioned. But in light of the circumstances that have been catalogued, chapter and verse, over a long period of time in a most damning fashion, I certainly have no alternative but to lend my wholehearted support to the motion of non-confidence in the Minister of Education.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I support this motion of non-confidence in the minister. I think there are several reasons why the Legislature of this committee should vote non-confidence in the Minister of Education. The minister is in charge of ICBC and the real Minister of Health.

The minister got into a lot of trouble in the early stages of his portfolio, Mr. Chairman, when he advised people, if they couldn't afford the fantastic increases in automobile insurance premiums, to sell their automobiles. This, of course, was not a consistent philosophy of his when it came to personal friends and colleagues in the House. He advised them to collect more than they were entitled to from ICBC and then sell at a profit. He's been a minister who has been inconsistent in his philosophy. He preaches one thing to the people of this province and does another.

He is an academic elitist. He is the Marie Antoinette of the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't wish to unduly insult Marie Antoinette but, Mr. Chairman, this minister, who has his back to the truth, and will probably continue to have his back to the truth until he is wheeled out the door by a wiser Premier, hopefully, someday soon, has taken over the larger part of the responsibilities of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . The Minister of Health is a person who is very sensitive to these kinds of things but remains relatively quiet about them.

I understand that the Marie Antoinette of this cabinet is the only person in that cabinet who can overrule the Premier. He is a person who calls him "Bill." He is a person who gets his own way. He is a person who can override any other cabinet minister. He has got clout and it relates back to a deal that was made, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Education was enticed into the coalition Social Credit Party by the now Premier. It is a deal that the Minister of Education, who was born with a silver foot in his mouth, will always get his own way. I would like just to canvass three of the most major problems that we have in supporting this minister and therefore show why we have to support this motion of non-confidence.

The first is the university hospital. I predict that the cost of that university hospital will be so outrageous it will become the major scandal of this administration. I know the Premier is listening to every word because he is most aware of the costs of the university hospital. He can't do anything about it because he made a deal with the Minister of Education to entice him to the Social Credit Party that Pat will always get his own way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, let's refer to members in the House by their proper designations.

MR. LAUK: I didn't mean to become familiar, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Education....

HON. MR. McGEER: Him?

MR. LAUK: It's no idea of mine. (Laughter.)

The Minister of Education is getting his own way with the university hospital. The costs are gargantuan and, so far, not revealed to the public. This is not a white elephant. This is a monumental tragedy in terms of health in this province.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , although not widely appreciated currently in the Social Credit ranks, was widely known as a very excellent Minister of Health. His concept of a B.C. medical centre was painstakingly canvassed.

If the Premier has an objection, Mr. Chairman, the usual way is to stand up in his place and speak to the Chairman directly, or take the Chairman, at the beginning of the week, to lunch and raise all of them at one time, but whispering back and forth to the Chairman, who is not a person easily directed or intimidated by either side of the House, is wasting his breath and interrupting my speech, which I don't like at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the motion, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Unlike the Chairman, however, he can do that with the front bench, and does with the Charlie McCarthy who is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and so on.

Mr. Chairman, getting back to the university hospital, the costs are reaching such a proportion, and the Minister of Education is digging in his heels to such a degree, that there is a major crisis in the cabinet today. This crisis will not be overcome until the Minister of Education is overruled by a strong

[ Page 4062 ]

Premier or the Premier is overruled by a strong Minister of Education. One way or the other in this province, the people should start to understand that we don't have one First Minister, we have two. We have a . . . not a triumvirate - what is it?

MR. BARBER: A dumbvirate.

MR. LAUK: A dumbvirate? (Laughter.) Some uncharitable person could suggest two dummies are heading the government. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't say that myself, knowing how sensitive you are about these matters.

This is an issue that is of some seriousness when one looks at the very, very narrow line that the Premier, as Minister of Finance, has to walk, and when one considers the low revenues caused by his devastating taxation policies. I would say that at the end of the fiscal year we are going to find that the greatest drain, the man who has shovelled the money out of the back of the truck, has been our favourite, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) .

The second issue on which I rise to support this motion is the ICBC coverup. The Minister of Education, being born and raised as an elitist, and reinforced as an elitist by himself throughout the years of his self-education, particularly when shaving in the morning, will not admit to a mistake. He has rushed to the aid of the member for Maui, a person who has displayed himself at least, if not deliberately crass in his self-interest in seeking this office, a person who is so clumsy as an MLA. Yet Marie Antoinette rushes to his aid.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's accident-prone.

MR. LAUK: I think it's more than that-, there's more than just a little cloud over the hon. member for Coquitlam's head.

MR. GIBSON: He's so narrow-minded if you planted him you would grow a pin. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Why the hon. Minister of Education insists on protecting the hon. member for Coquitlam, I don't know.

MR. LEA: Together they're broad-minded.

MR. LAUK: I received a letter the other day from a constituent of the hon. member for Coquitlam that asks the same question. It is not enough for the Premier of this province, who, by the way, has been strangely silent as the documentation in the Coquitlam case has been revealed, strangely silent in his defence.... You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that he first defended the member for Coquitlam and said:

"Every MLA should do this." He hasn't said a word since because he smells trouble, but the Minister of Education doesn't smell trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The motion has to do with the salary of the hon. Minister of Education, as I read it. Please keep your debate relevant.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I'll just deal with the ICBC coverup. I have not seen anything like that in the current administration or the previous administration. I have not seen anything like that since the Sommers Affair, when cabinet ministers, particularly the Attorney-General of the day, covered up for many, many days the bribery allegations made against Robert Sommers, who was subsequently convicted of those charges and served a period of time in prison.

What has happened here is a continuous coverup, including the tabling on the floor of this Legislature a document that impugned and may be perjurious, mis-statements of fact, counter-allegations, smokescreens and what-have-you. It's a very shabby display from a person who is - so he tells us - well educated and a gentleman. That cannot go without some kind of a response from the opposition, and that's a vote of non-confidence and a vote to reduce his salary.

MR. LEA: When were you in business for yourself, Pat? When was that? When did you make all that money?

MR. LAUK: The third reason I would support this motion of non-confidence is the torrid Torresan affair. Mr. Torresan is alleged to be a friend of the minister. Mr. Dave Brown was hired by the government as soon as it took office to do a report on the letting of contracts through government service and Crown corporations to public relations and advertising companies in the province or elsewhere. He set down what were generally accepted in the trade as being very good guidelines for the letting of those contracts. The report, I am given to understand, was read by the minister and read by other members of the cabinet and generally approved and accepted by them. It was startling indeed to the industry, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's old buddy would be the beneficiary of a hatchet job at ICBC on a Mr. Catton of Catton agency who had been doing the job for ICBC for some time. Catton's agency, I'm told, competed. Catton Buchan was hired last September after a competition in which nine agencies were required to submit formal creative proposals. Torresan - the minister's buddy - was one of the companies that was turned down in that original competition. Now everybody knows that Torresan

[ Page 4063 ]

has had associations with the Premier, and he's also had associations with the minister and is the minister's old buddy.

No member of ICBC's senior management staff was consulted or heard of the change in the contract. It was strictly a board of directors decision and even the senior most management position person had to be notified, as that person - Bortnick - was on holiday, that the board met and made a decision. David Brown, who did the report, was embarrassed. His reputation suffered greatly at the hands of this minister in the advertising world. Of course, Mr. Brown, being a wise person, did not say so publicly; it's generally known that he feels very embarrassed. However, he is reported in the press today as having stated: "The directors on the boards of Crown corporations are autonomous and all we can do is to give them guidelines and hope they'll go along with them."

Well, the board of directors is really only the Minister of Education. We know what Mr. Brown is getting at, that he can't force a cabinet minister to abide by these guidelines. And the cabinet minister with a Marie Antoinette mentality - an academic elitist and a person who has a deal with the Premier to jointly share the First Minister's portfolio - will not be overruled. He'll do the overruling, and he cancelled the contract, As I say, no senior management person of ICBC was consulted or even knew the decision was going to be made. After the decision, Mr. Bortnick was notified, Catton was fired, and Torresan was in. No guidelines, no re-submission, no competition; straight political patronage, straight buddy-system handout. It's a crass uncivilized thing to do in 1977. It brings us back to the old coalition days, Mr. Chairman, when persons by the name of Gerry McGeer and Gordon Wismer were familiar, and all the old days of the old coalition between the Liberals and the Tories and all of the handouts and the patronage and the nepotism that used to go on in those days. This is the mistake that this Premier, the member for South Okanagan, has made that his father never would have made - that kind of a deal with the old Liberal establishment - because once you make that kind of a deal, the old Liberal establishment can corrupt you. Your principles and your old ideas - openness in government and honesty in the expenditure of the government's money - are fair play. In other words, nepotism is back and patronage is back, Mr. Chairman.

Who is the most blatant? The Minister of Transport hires his son-in-law for a summer vacation job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. member, you're straying away from the motion.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Education hires his old buddy through ICBC, through a patronage job. His old buddy failed; he was one of the companies turned down in the original competition. The minister has to go to the top of the crass, Mr. Chairman.

The minister a few days ago said: "Everybody's my friend. Torresan is my friend. Catton is my friend. Why, we've known him for 30 years." Here is what Catton says about that. McGeer told Gibson in the Legislature that he's an old friend - even an older friend, in fact, of Catton than he is of Torresan. Catton says no. He said: "He's no friend of mine." Just as old Tony Tozer is no relative of the Premier, the Minister of Education is an old friend of Catton. He said he once worked with McGeer's mother, but "as for the minister himself, I suppose I've spoken to him half a dozen times." Catton says he believed that he would be working for three years for ICBC. This is the kind of minister we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman. This is the reason why the opposition is putting forward this motion and the three reasons that I will gladly support it.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Those in the gallery listening to the previous speaker, the first member for Vancouver Centre, might come to the conclusion that he is a very wise man, a businessman of some note, a person who when in office always made business decisions that were for the betterment of the people of British Columbia. One of the reporters for The Daily Colonist, Mr. Hume, of course, knows better. The press gallery knows better. They're all still waiting for this tiresome, little, funny man to make some sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to the motion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, indeed. This is the man who started Railwest, isn't it. That was a big winner. This is the man, Mr. Chairman, in order to fully appreciate the extent and depth of his criticism, who along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , ran B.C. Rail for several years, now knowing that one of their co-directors was taking $250 a month.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I want to know whether the minister over there is supporting this motion of non-confidence in the member for Vancouver Centre or whether he isn't.

Well, I mean, the minister is criticizing this member instead of talking to the motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That's not a point of order. The hon. minister has the floor.

May I remind the hon. minister that we are on a motion and the motion reads that the salary of the hon. Minister of Education, as provided in vote 158,

[ Page 4064 ]

be reduced by $I?

HON. MR. MAIR: I only think that my brethren in the House ought to be in a position to make a judgment on the critic of my colleague, the Minister of Education. After all, he has called upon this House to vote non-confidence in that minister.

And I say this, Mr. Chairman, that anybody who sits on the board of directors of a public corporation without knowing that one of those directors is receiving illegally $4,500 has no cause to criticize any minister or anyone else in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: This is the man, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister, to the motion, please.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now having, I hope, indicated to the House the shallow nature of the criticism of my colleague, the Minister of Education, may I simply make this observation: ICBC lost ' under the New Democratic Party, more money than any other company in North American history. That year it lost more money than any other company in North American history. That year it lost more money than any company, of any kind in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: These are facts. Giggle if you will. The public knows the truth. In one year, the whole matter was turned around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, the minister has the floor.

HON. MR. MAIR: In one year the corporation was turned around, ran $91 million ahead of budget, reduced premiums 17.5 per cent, and paid off startup costs and other expenses. This year it is better.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the members opposite have the nerve, in the light of the record of this minister, to move a vote of non-confidence. I heard the minister say "Shame" last night. It's a pity that there isn't a stronger word that's parliamentary because it's truly shameful that people opposite, who could bring this province to such disrepair, could stand in this House and criticize the man who has brought back their biggest catastrophe and made it into a paying and viable proposition.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, may I ask the hon. Minister of Consumer Affairs to withdraw the word "tiresome"? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MAIR: I will certainly withdraw that. "Tedious" is the word I meant to use, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: I too support this motion. Many of the reasons have been outlined by my colleagues today, all of which I agree with, but I'm not going to repeat those reasons, Mr. Chairman. I support the motion for a different reason which hasn't been mentioned this afternoon.

It was very discouraging to the people throughout this province who contribute voluntarily a great deal of time and effort in seeing to the operation of our public school system, it was a disappointment to those people, Mr. Chairman, to find when we began to discuss the estimates for education, that the minister responsible for that public school system, which affects far more citizens than any other one factor of that minister's responsibility, saw fit to stand in his place and in his opening remarks not to make one mention of that public school system. To me, that was a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. It was a slap in the face to those many, many people out there in the hustings who work day and night to give of their time, their talent and their energy to aid that minister in presenting the kind of educational programme that he sees fit to present and, in working with that minister, to try and bring their ideas into being in working towards the most important thing facing British Columbia - and that is the young people of British Columbia, the youth of this province, in giving them the opportunities for education and training.

If that minister could stand in his place and in all his opening remarks say not one word about that public school system, I think that is a disgrace, Mr. Chairman. I certainly support this motion, on those grounds alone if no other, to reduce his salary in the amount specified.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 30

[ Page 4065 ]

Mr. Cocke requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to speak in the minister's estimates to cover the very strong and positive job that this minister is doing not only as Minister of Education but on the job the minister has done in taking over the most difficult assignment given to any member of this government, and that is cleaning up the mess of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

British Columbians will recall the predictions of the opposition during 1975, when we were a very, very concerned opposition in a House that was dominated by the New Democratic Party, that the figures and the statements concerning the Insurance Corporation by the members of that former government were not accurate. We questioned the deficit. Lo and behold, despite the assurances of the former Minister of Finance and the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) , despite the assurances of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , who was then the Minister of Health and a director of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia - two people of that former administration who should have known and, in my view, did know the true financial status of ICBC.... They kept its condition from the public and they said that the predictions of a $30 million loss and a $40 million loss were excessive. In fact, during one burst of enthusiasm, where a former minister who was rewarded with a two-year contract as agent-general in London....

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. ]

Certainly not patronage. Just a reward for someone for bungling ICBC at the expense of the taxpayers of British Columbia. He said that ICBC might show a small profit.

Instead, Mr. Chairman, I remember the first news that greeted this government in December, 1975, when we were elected. I can remember the look on the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) face when he came to his cabinet colleagues and had to tell us the bad news that the Insurance Corporation indeed looked much worse from first glance than we had anticipated. It was at that time that we said that the situation was so severe it called for the scrutiny of a national firm of chartered accountants, along with government financing.

Lo and behold, that new Minister of Education had his worst fears realized. The Insurance Corporation had not broken even. It hadn't lost $30 million, it hadn't lost $40 million, it hadn't lost $100 million, it hadn't lost $150 million. In a single year it set an international record for loss and mismanagement. Mainly it was a question of a gigantic coverup, a public coverup unequalled in the history of government in this province or in this country. That, Mr. Chairman, is the legacy that was left to this Minister of Education.

Never was a chore more difficult inherited by a new government and this new minister of the Crown. This minister faced many trying days - days in which the public searched for what was happening with ICBC and what had happened, at a time when there was concern over the cost of premiums, at a time when that corporation was recovering from the mismanagement. But he took that corporation as a challenge that no other minister has ever faced, taking a company that had had the worst record of mismanagement of any Crown corporation ever, a corporation in which there had been a gigantic coverup by the previous government and its directors appointed from that government, and he turned that corporation around.

Now he didn't do it alone, Mr. Chairman, because he met the first commitment of this government to attract and challenge a strong, independent board of directors to take the seamy politics that permeated that corporation under the last government, take them away forever, and challenge British Columbians to do something with this corporation that was dragging this government and the people of British Columbia down in a financial debt that we couldn't afford to pay. It is through his own dynamic ability that he attracted strong directors to this corporation willing to take on the mess, willing to sweep aside the old political scandals that were left, not in recrimination but to give that corporation a new, fresh start, This is what that minister did.

I am surprised at some of the members, even in the official opposition, who supported this motion that was just dealt with in this House. With just that one record of success of this minister.... They above all must have known. Some of them even participated in the government that was responsible for that mess. They must have known that the mess was beyond their own competence - not just those in the back bench but those whom they had elected as ministers and those ministers who were directors. It was so beyond them that they called an election out of fear of the true facts of that corporation being made public before the public would have the chance to assess them on their true record and wipe them out forever. That's why that election was called in 1975.

That is why that election was called in 1975. Of all the things that this minister has done, the cleanup of ICBC will stand as a tribute to his perseverance, to his ability, and, more than that, to his willingness to take

[ Page 4066 ]

on the most difficult task of this government. A difficult task, indeed. That minister has not only the appreciation of those of us who serve with him and his colleagues, but he has the appreciation of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who recognize the tremendous job that faced him, the job that had to be done. In that mess, the first job was attracting willing British Columbians to serve on that early directorate and to live down the sorry beginnings and past of ICBC and to give it a fresh new start. That minister accomplished that, and in just 18 months we have, after the biggest mess and political scandal and coverup in B.C.'s history, one of its greatest successes. It's an amazing turnaround.

I cannot understand how that official opposition would have the gall, with that record tied to their administration and this minister's record of success, to bring in a non-confidence motion on that minister. I can't understand how they would have the gall to stand up and support it. I don't know how you have the gall to keep your heads up when the debate on ICBC is carried on in this House with the record of bad administration and coverup which you participated in when you were government. To take your hatred and your own failure and to try and attack the man who saved that corporation for British Columbia is going too far. That is shameful!

Mr. Chairman, I remember nights when that minister, weary from working 18 hours a day trying to clean up ICBC and dealing, in all those hours, day after day, with the corporation, dragged himself back to his office to take on an even more important task - not greater but important - because it deals with the future of our province. That is our young people and that is the portfolio of education.

Here was a man and a minister willing, besides cleaning up ICBC, to take on the important task of bringing some direction to the educational system in this province. There were three and a half years of drift and three and a half years of Bremer and the controversy surrounding Mr. Bremer and Dr. Knight and white papers and no papers; anything but direction. The minister also took on this challenge of creating an educational system that would challenge our youth and bring some direction to education. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, if you go around this province, people are talking positively about education once more. The former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) is bleating: "Where is it? Where is the policy?" How does she know? She's not out there talking with the parents and the students and the teachers and those who are getting some hope from strong new direction being taken in education.

She's a me-too'er, Mr. Chairman, because she is the member who, when the minister brought in the core curriculum, said: "Oh, I was doing that. I was doing it under another name." The other name was "confusion" in her ministry.

That reminds me. About everything positive this minister has done - in fact, everything positive this government has done, and they are many - they say: "Oh, we were going to do that." How many times have you heard that, Mr. Chairman, from that opposition? "We were going to do it."

I'll tell you, when it came to education, they didn't do it. I've talked to people in the educational system and people who were in the department and people who had been in the department through other administrations - professionals in the system. While they were concerned and have been concerned about education for many years, they recognize that the Education portfolio went into an area of no direction during those three and a half years. It was a time of indecision. It was a time of - I wouldn't say not strong leadership - no leadership, a time in our educational department that meant there was going to be a greater challenge for the minister and the government to follow. Again, as I said, this Minister of Education has more than met the challenge in 18 months.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Premier is doing what I would like all members to do in Committee of Supply. That is, he is speaking specifically to the vote. I would ask that the members of the House who are making side comments, if you want to, rise on a point of order, rise on a point of order, but....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, hon. member, you'll have the opportunity to rise when the present speaker is finished. Would the Premier continue, please?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) - the first member on his last term from Vancouver East - asked why the Premier didn't speak to the vote. Unfortunately, when the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) stood up.... I thought that a well-organized attack, if you had an attack, would take longer than three minutes and I went into the hall and they called the vote so fast your head would swim. I missed it, and that's my fault, but I'm taking my place now to tell you what a great job this minister is doing. So the two biggest challenges facing the government and facing the people of B.C., ICBC and education, have been tackled by one man, one minister, and we've had a successful conclusion and a great beginning - a great beginning to our educational system and a strong start from the shaky administration that was given to ICBC during its formative years.

I just want to comment on one or two other things

[ Page 4067 ]

because some of the members mentioned and attacked this minister about this government's advertising policy. I've got to tell you that I'll stack up the type of competition and guidelines that apply to advertising, whether it's for the Ministry of Education, the Crown corporations or any ministry of government, set out by this government as compared with the record of the administration that that member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) participated in. I'll stack up the numbers of advertising agencies who through merit have received the government business against the money billed by the Dunsky advertising agency. Look at the billings for the Dunsky advertising agency for 1974-75. What were they? In 1974-75, $2,063, 476 went to the advertising agency that was imported from Toronto just to serve the interests not of B.C. but of the NDP. And they stand up and they attack this minister and they attack this government on how this government has cleaned up the award of advertising, how they deal fairly and deal with competition. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you read these figures and read their history, how can they stand up so sanctimoniously with their sorry record of patronage that they paid to Mr. Dunsky and the advertising agency? Nobody would trust their sincerity in any other debate on any other subject in this Legislature ever again.

I'll tell you, in the year 1976-77, the billings cover a lot of agencies, from Baker Lovick to Myron Balagno and Associates, to Catton Buckham Advertising Agency Ltd. and Cockfield Brown & Company Ltd. Dunsky Advertising, coincidentally, left B.C. with the defeat of the last government. Foster Young Ross Anthony & Associates Ltd.; Foster Advertising Co. Ltd.; F.H. Hayhurst Company Ltd.; Inter-corp Marketing Ltd.; *Littleton Lawson and Associates; McKim Advertising; Palmer Jarvis & Associates; Ronalds ReynoIds; and the list goes on and on, all under guidelines laid down by this government in an advertising policy. Yes, this government, recognizing the sins of the last government, recommended that policy to the Crown corporation. We recommended it because we never again wanted to see a party come to power such as the NDP with the blatant patronage that took place between that party and Dunsky Advertising. This record of success is available for all British Columbians. I'll tell them.

I'm glad the first and last members for Vancouver East want this to be an issue because I'm going to go throughout the province. I'll compare our record and our guidelines and the dollar amounts that were paid to the different agencies compared with the amount that you gave to Manny Dunsky and his company. I'll tell them if that's the issue you want, if that's the .comparison you want, I'll make the comparison; I'll take it to the people of B.C. They can understand figures; they can understand the records. These are the things that are available to public accounts - if public accounts ever gets down to dealing with the very important job it has to perform in this government.

Yes, this Minister of Education, above all, is a minister to be proud of, a minister who has met his challenge, a minister who is working not only to clean up the past but to prepare for tomorrow. This is a Minister of Education with whom anyone would be proud to serve. I'm proud to serve with him.

I think the greatest test will be when all British Columbians give him the great vote of confidence they're going to give him when next we go to the people and put his record on the line compared with the record of the former Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) , when we put his record on the line at administering ICBC against the record of the former Premier (Mr. Barrett) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) when they were running ICBC.

This minister deserves the support and thanks of British Columbians. I only hope that he has the strength and will meet the challenge that we know faces him in the future, because he is a strong part of this government and he's providing strong leadership for British Columbia.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the latitude was splendid - the latitude to first reflect on a vote that had been taken and then the latitude to be all over the ball park. Mr. Chairman, the attitude of that Premier when he stood in this House just a moment ago talking about our hatred, when every word he said dripped with hatred, and the response of his backbenchers and his colleagues I don't feel many of us could be particularly proud of today.

Mr. Chairman, he talked about those long nights of work - this tremendous work ethic that we get from the First Minister. Long nights of work will provide consolation for any kind of sin. Long nights of work are a way to wipe away your sins or your misdeeds or your lack of competence. Long nights of work, Mr. Chairman, don't impress me at all, if those long nights of work don't produce the kind of results that the people in this province deserve.

Mr. Chairman, he talked about how ICBC was a great problem. It was a problem, foisted upon the previous government by an insurance group - that is all the private companies - most of them pulling out at the same time. It had to be brought into being very quickly. But you know that minister had a free run at it after it had been established, and the first minister then gets up and says what a fine job he's done. It just makes me wonder whether the Premier's watching what's happening among his ministers at all.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier did more to put himself right in the same kind of position that

[ Page 4068 ]

the Minister of Education is in now. The Premier has now put himself under that same cloud. He said that he deserves the support of the people of British Columbia. I say that all he deserves the support of is the people in Surrey Dodge and the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , because that's where their record of patronage starts. Mr. Chairman, where does it end? I suggest, because of this gigantic cover-up that we've seen, that's the tip of the iceberg.

I just want to deal with one other little issue and that's the advertising account. You know, I've watched the Premier retread this speech ever since he became Premier of this province, over and over and over again. He doesn't do a bad job of this speech because he's done it so many times. Not a bad time, because he's done it so often. He's rehearsed and rehearsed and rehearsed. But the one thing that he does there as well is cover up beautifully the fact that there were many advertising agencies hired by the previous government, but the only one that he ever remembers is Manny Dunsky.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Because they got so much money. Two million dollars a year.

MR. COCKE: Two million dollars a year? You know, Mr. Chairman, that's very interesting, indeed. But the fact is that the Dunsky firm was one of the firms that we could trust because they didn't have their tentacles out in all these free enterpriser's groups. That's right. And where did the $2 million go? It went to the newspapers and it went to the radio, just like the situation is now. Now, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, order, please! The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: They're a little upset, Mr. Chairman, but you see, the Premier never puts the facts before the House; it's always the same thing. If he's going to compare, why doesn't he compare Torresan and Dunsky? Because there wasn't all that much over on this side of the water that he got. He certainly got none of the business from the Health ministry, none of the major business from the Education ministry, nor from many other ministries which I can think of off the top of my head.

Mr. Chairman, all this talk is just talk, but what does it do? It's a smokescreen around some absolute factual charges that we've been making over the last two or three days that have not been answered. Mr. Chairman, working 18 hours a day doesn't excuse a minister from either overlooking or doing a bad job or, for that matter, condoning some of the things that have been happening around claims in ICBC. That was our point, and we suggest that that point was well taken, because they have not been able to provide the answers - purely and simply that.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying all afternoon to say a few things about education. I don't mean by that that we should not be debating ICBC; I just felt that we should complete the ICBC debate first.

If we're to be rather observant of events this afternoon, I would like to use the phrase "deja vu, " because I've never seen our Premier so perfectly bring back to the members of the opposition memories of the former, former Premier who used to go into full flight with very much the mannerisms that we saw this afternoon. I don't criticize that either - it was done with great flair - but I'm sure the Minister of Labour, although he may be wincing at the reference, would agree that some of the gesticulations this afternoon were reminiscent of another great British Columbian who was Premier in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I will quickly touch on one or two points, and particularly the problems faced by the university students this coming session. I know that the minister will immediately say that he gives the money to the universities and the universities do the best they can, but the fact is one constituent of mine in particular, who is a graduate student of UBC doing his third year of school of architecture, finds his fees increased by 32 per cent. I think he makes a very good point when he writes to me and he says:

"I want to know just where does our infinitely hypocritical government get off saying on the one hand that it supports the federal wage-and-price control programme, and on the other hand hitting students, who have had a hard enough time as it is getting summer employment and paying living expenses, with these huge increases. Perhaps they feel that no students voted for them anyway so it won't hurt them politically. Please speak up on my behalf and on behalf of other students on this matter. I always thought education was a priority of this province."

I've researched the average increases, Mr. Chairman. It's 25 per cent at UVic, 26 per cent at Simon Fraser, and between 25 and 30 per cent at UBC. I know the argument will be produced that the universities have autonomy to decide fee increases. But I would hope that the minister would have some dialogue with the Universities Council and with the universities individually. The argument being put forward now is rather similar to the argument we had on ferry fares: they hadn't been changed in X number of years. I think at the University of Victoria the claim was that the fees had not been increased in 12 years, despite increases in the consumer price index of 76 per cent over these 12 years.

[ Page 4069 ]

I would just plead with the minister to try and bring about some regular, reasonable adjustment in university fees on an annual or bi-annual basis. To keep them more or less the same for 10 or 12 years and then suddenly thump the student with a 32 per cent increase in 1977 makes about as much sense as leaving the ferry fares the same and then increasing them by 100 per cent.

I would also like to quote from the confidential report of the Universities Council when it was reporting on accessibility to post-secondary education. The Universities Council stated:

"There is in British Columbia a clear denial of equal education opportunity, a lack of access which is correlated with socio-economic status of the potential student. The reasons for this are complex. But one of the reasons has historically been the inability of qualified students to finance a college or university education."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that's a disturbing statement, coming as it does from the body in this province which under the Universities Act is given the responsibility of co-ordinating university financing and the responsibility of trying to point out how effective or ineffective our post-secondary system of education is to ensure that there is equal and fair access to all students who are qualified to avail themselves of a university education.

At the same time as that confidential report was revealed in February of this year, it was also stated that there is a very definite need for some long-term planning in relation to university fees. I gather that certainly prior to the creation of the Universities Council, it was very much an ad hoc situation for each university. Now we have at least a step forward in trying to co-ordinate the financing of all universities in the province.

I would suggest that two things should now be attempted. First of all, there should be some ministry participation in discussions to ensure that fees don't suddenly jump and they should be regulated or increased, as needs may be, very much on an annual basis. Some planning should be embarked upon, perhaps in terms of a five-year plan, let us say, to give some kind of predictable outline of how fees might be expected to increase within that period of time.

As the young student in my riding points out, it's been hard enough in recent summers to gain employment to make the money to go back to university. To then find that all of a sudden the fees are increased by 32 per cent is really a pretty serious burden.

On another similar point, I'd like to raise the plight of instructors in the secondary school subjects of the correspondence branch of the Ministry of Education. I raised this a year or two ago and I don't think anything has been done to improve the situation.

These instructors, Mr. Chairman, in the correspondence branch of the ministry have university degrees, they have academic teaching certification, and they have experience in teaching. Yet they are presently being paid $4 an hour to supervise and correct papers by students who are receiving correspondence courses. That $4 an hour is calculated upon the basis of good students. . The majority of students, I understand, are in the moderate or less than moderately successful category. When you take that into account, these qualified instructors are probably earning something around $3 an hour, which is minimum wage.

I think it's also fair to make the point that the instructors provide the office, the light, the heat, the pens, the filing system and the time, and that their only fringe benefit is that they get Canada Pension Plan if they earn enough to pay on that. In the case of sickness there is loss of work but no sick benefits, and obviously there is no security of tenure.

Now the point I just wish to make quickly, before the witching hour, Mr. Chairman, is that the last raise in rates of pay was October, 1974. How many people in the labour force in British Columbia got their last raise in October, 1974? The raise that was given to civil servants at that time gave the instructors nothing. The pay raise in 1974 for other civil servants was retroactive to April; and when the outside instructors finally got an increase, it was only applied in October, 1974, not April.

I'll finish quickly. An argument has been put forward that some of these instructor positions are filled by teachers with a full-time appointment who, in effect, are moonlighting. I'm not going to get into that argument, Mr. Chairman, but it does seem that those instructors who are doing this as a livelihood and who don't have a full-time job are certainly receiving a rate of pay which, for the qualifications and experience and the kind of service they render, is really pitiful.

I wonder if, either today or when we resume debate tomorrow, the minister could report on, first of all, what hope these instructors might have of a better rate of pay and to what degree is there some hope that a better vehicle of bargaining can be brought to bear upon their particular situation.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd like to discuss this further under that vote, Mr. Member, and I'd be very pleased to inquire into it and try to get details for you. We can deal with it separately if there isn't a chance under the debate.

With respect to fees, yes, the member predicted correctly what I would say, namely that the fees charged in B.C. for universities are still among the lowest in Canada and it hasn't been the policy of the Ministry of Education to try and dictate what fees

[ Page 4070 ]

universities should charge. I think it is very instructive that we gave approximately the same measure of increase to the universities and colleges. The colleges had no increase in fees at all and the universities went up 32 per cent. It is really quite an exercise to see where that money went. It gets right down to a straight competition between the faculty awards and student fees. It is that simple.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.