Tuesday, May 16, 1967

$

. On Thursday of last week, or was it Friday, it doesn’t matter, Mr. Sigsworth [telephoned the Premier’s office from Mr. Cavenaugh's office, and the conversation lasted about thirty-five minutes. He spoke to Mr. Wells and others whose voices ere not recognizable. The content of the conversation was mostly inane, as one ould expect, with one notable exception, Mr. Sigsworth two or three times referred to the Royal Commission as the “Centennial Guillotine". Imagine that! Here we have a so-called unbiased commission set up to study the affairs of the Georgetown In- ustries, and yet Mr. Sigsworth already has inside information that heads are going fall. I suppose that this modern Madame Dufarge will be sitting, with his knitting, t the foot of the scaffold. I have already referred to Mr. Sigsworth’s colleague, Mr. icholson, the fellow with so many hats — the Mad Hatter, as he has been called. t seems to me that the Royal Commission will have its hands full, both in trying ferret out the truth and in controlling this pair. The expression “Mad Hatter” s not inapt. Those of you who recall Lewis Caroll’s famous fairy-tale cannot help ut compare a meeting of the Liberal hierarchy with the Mad Hatter’s tea-party.

I wish now to speak about the fourth important matter that should have been ealt with in this Assembly. and I refer to higher education. I, and others, had ex- ected some Government policy in this respect. We received no statement of policy, ut rather another foolish bill that means nothing, and all of it supported by the sual humble and apologetic remarks of the Minister of Education. One would expect hat he would have something constructive to offer when about 1.5 million dollars re to be spent on higher education this year. And more so, because the other prob- ems of elementary and high school education had been solved by his predecessor. nstead of trying to reflect public opinion or guide the public. we have another bill, hich solves nothing and indeed it compounds the problem. You will naturally ask. What is the problem 1'” The problem is how best to expend the tax-payer's money or higher education. and I suggest to you that this Government is not accepting the sponsibility of offering a possible solution. In this respect an editorial in the alifax Chronicle-Herald of 14th February 1967 poses the question properly, and I ate:

“The social ressures upon the universities to spend extraordinary sums of oney to expand eir services are made even stronger by the fact that each uni- ersity regards others as competitors, in a sense, and therefore deems it advisable ot to allow the others to appear more progressive, more willing to spend, more clined to do all things asked for them by their respective constituencies.

Against this background, a note of caution is not inappropriate. Are univer- ity boards of governors making reasonable judgments always in their handling of naccustomed millions raised from public and private sources? Are their capital nding priorities sensible? Are the management techniques they employ adequate their new status as overseers of big operating budgets?

The Bladen report on the financing of higher education in Canada (1965) is iefly noted for its recommendations of many more millions of dollars in government uppert for the universities. It is interesting to remember, however, that its authors lso felt a need to remind the universities that more assistance surely thrust upon he universities the responsibility of ensuring that it was used wisely.

At one point, for example, the re rt suggested that the universities recognize the im rtance of exploring all meth s of reducing costs which are not inimical to eadem c quality: that they continue to pursue excellence without extravagance.”

The ordinary taxpayer has no way of knowing whether they are following this advice. The university themselves, it seems to us, should take pains to persuade the public that they are both economy and expansion-minded.”

The editorial points up squarely that it is a question of the most judicious use of public funds. It questions the judgments of boards of governors of educational institutions and it emphasizes that each University regards others as competitors. I suggest to you that these observations are even more applicable to Prince Edward Island. We have here two institutions of higher learning. each concerned only with their own inner circle, and each serene in the knowledge that they are pursuing the correct course. They may be right, but I suggest that if the public is going to pay for this, some attempt should be made to ascertain the real as well as the “supposed"

—413—