[ Page 4437 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Provision of drugs through Pharmacare. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4437

Future of Wilkinson Road Jail. Hon. Mr. Gardom replies –– 4440

Presenting reports

Reports of Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills –– 4440

Independent Schools Support Act (Bill 33) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 4441

Mrs. Dailly –– 4443

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4445

Mr. Lauk –– 4447

Mr. Cocke –– 4449

Mr. Gibson –– 4450

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4450

Mr. Stupich –– 4450

Ms. Brown –– 4450

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4451

Mrs. Dailly –– 4454

Mr. Stupich –– 4454

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4454

Mr. Wallace –– 4454

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4455

Mr. Gibson –– 4456

Mr. Cocke –– 4457

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4457

Mr. Stupich –– 4457

Ms. Brown –– 4458

Mr. Gibson –– 4460

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4460

Mr. Barrett –– 4460

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4461

Motion that the committee rise and report progress –– 4462

Mrs. Dailly –– 4462

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4462

Mr. Stupich –– 4463

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4464

Ms. Brown –– 4464

Mr. Stupich –– 4465

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4465

Ms. Brown –– 4466

Mr. Cocke –– 4467

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4467

Mr. King –– 4467

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4468

Division on section I –– 4469

On section 2.

Mrs. Dailly –– 4469

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I have several introductions to make today. First of all, a very special guest on the floor of the House today from the constituency of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , Fred Fish, compliments of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , of the clan sea-run cutthroat.

Mr. Speaker, also visiting in the gallery today is a group of senior citizens from the Victoria Silver Threads centre. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, visiting in Victoria and in the gallery today are Mayor and Mrs. Chuck Knight from Fort McMurray, Alberta, the heart of the tar sands or the oil sands. With them are former residents of Fort McMurray now residing in Sorrento, Mr. and Mrs. George Caouette. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): We are privileged to have members of the clergy daily give blessing to this House at the start of our deliberations. For several days this year, we have been privileged to have Rev. Senkiw present, as he is today. But in addition to thanking him for his service to this House, I would also like to ask the House to welcome his niece from Coquitlam and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Singleton and their children, Tommy, Brian Jr. and Charlene.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today visiting from Penticton are Lorne and Mavis Turney and their son, Shane, along with Robert Wanock. I would ask the House to welcome them.

Oral questions.

PROVISION OF DRUGS

THROUGH PHARMACARE

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. I note that this morning there were stories in both The Victorian and the Colonist about a woman in Victoria who is critically, if not terminally, ill with a disease of the nervous system, a disease which, in her case, can be medically shown to be assisted by treatment by megavitamins. My question to the minister is: is he going to continue to sit back on his $100 million surplus and let this young woman die?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think that the question should be rephrased, inasmuch as you would, in your stating of the question, infer a personal responsibility on behalf of the minister. He's responsible as a minister for his portfolio, so please rephrase the question so it's in order.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I've noticed in this House that you are constantly calling members to order with a long preamble and I hope to shorten it.

However, the minister, I'm sure, is aware, as this House is aware, that for some time now the minister has been denying megavitamin users access to the Pharmacare programme. He has promised on numerous occasions to numerous people that if it can be shown that these are necessary for health and do make improvements to health, he will approve the use in those specific cases.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: since it can be graphically and medically proven in this particular case that this individual is not only critically ill but possibly terminally ill, is he now prepared to reconsider his position? What, Mr. Speaker, is it going to take for this minister to be shown that this is needed?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the use of megavitamins, as well as the medical profession, have agreed that there could be real value in a pilot project to determine if in fact we can obtain information which would indicate once and for all what benefits, if any, may be derived from the megavitamin treatment therapy. We are proceeding on that course.

However ' if this particular member has information which obviously the medical profession does not have at this time, neither here nor anywhere in the United States of America, then that particular information would be very welcome and we would be very prepared to receive such information at any time. Not only that, I think the member, in fact, has an obligation and a duty to make this information available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The answer is becoming argumentative.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide that material to the minister. However, it would be an addition to material he has already been provided on many occasions by many other individuals.

MR. SPEAKER: That, hon. member, was not a supplementary question.

[ Page 4438 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the minister on the subject of megavitamins, Mr. Speaker. Since he is asking for information, I wonder if he could tell the House if he's aware of the fact - and I've confirmed this by personal discussion with the man concerned -that Dr. Hoffer is one of the outstanding international authorities on the use of megavitamins. I discussed this particular case with him today, and he tells me that the reason he has not written, asking the minister for permission on this particular case to provide megavitamins, is that he has had eight or nine similar requests, based on his experience and signed by him, on medical grounds, all rejected routinely ...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Allow the member to state his supplementary question.

MR. WALLACE: ... by Mr. Tidball in the form of a routine letter, not even a specific individual rejection according to the specific individual request.

I wonder if the minister can tell us whether in the meetings that are pending with the B.C. Medical Association, he can offer any interim solution to the problem since the pilot project that he is describing and which I would support will take some time to set up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the director of Pharmacare very often gets requests from particular physicians with respect to the prescription and the payment for those prescriptions. Certainly we do not rule as to whether a doctor should prescribe or not prescribe. The question is: when does the government assume the responsibility of paying for those prescriptions? We very often get requests from particular physicians for a number of items. There are doctors, as the hon. member for Oak Bay knows, in various places, perhaps not here but certainly on the continent, who prescribe, for example, Laetrile, which is a very controversial item, for the treatment of cancer. Many of these things, whatever value they may have to particular physicians, have not been recognized universally or even on a regional basis by the profession.

I think we have an obligation as a responsible government and as a ministry to assume that a particular product is not being prescribed and being recognized by a government for payment and thus giving a false hope to people who might be otherwise seeking more appropriate treatments. There is more to the prescription or the administering of a drug than the payment for that drug by the government. I think there's a great deal of responsibility placed on a ministry when we assume the payment. There are things read into that assumption which may or may not be there. I think we therefore should assure that all of the research which may be available through the professional and through other people expert in the field is accepted.

We have had meetings with Dr. Hoffer, and Dr. Hoffer was agreeable and assured us that he would participate in any pilot project. He welcomed such a pilot project in the place of the sort of ad hockery that the previous administration was involved in.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): In light of the minister's response to the first question, I'd like to ask him specifically: has he instructed the head of Pharmacare to forward to his attention any or all cases dealing with special requests for megavitamin therapy treatment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the vitamin treatments are being prescribed for a number of ailments and illnesses. Even there, those who are supportive of vitamin usage as therapy will agree with one aspect and not another. The whole question of vitamins, particularly as it applies to the treatment of schizophrenia or the treatment of multiple sclerosis ...

MR. BARRETT: Answer the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ... must be looked into on a study basis. The director of Pharmacare is now considering the approach that might be used, not as to whether we will become involved in a pilot project or not, but just which may be the better approach. Already we've been successful in getting the Medical Association to agree to participate in this study, which I think in itself is a milestone and certainly welcome.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister heard my question, and perhaps he didn't hear his first answer. He stated in this House that he wished, and had made it known, that all special cases of megavitamin therapy that had shown some substantial improvement of the patient would be given individual attention, as you said to this House. I ask you clearly....

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Is there a doctor in the House?

MR. BARRETT: If you think it's funny that a 25 year old girl is near death because of the absence of megavitamins, I don't think it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Stick to your supplemental question, please.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister specifically:

[ Page 4439 ]

has he given instructions to the director of the Pharmacare programme to bring to his desk, or his attention, specific cases of specific requests from physicians, like Dr. Hoffer and others, related to a specific treatment through megavitamin therapy -yes or no?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, every application is not individually considered by the minister.

MR. BARRETT: No, megavitamins.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They are, however, considered by the administration of the Pharmacare programme. However, again I want to repeat, as this is being discussed in the House, we are taking a very responsible approach in providing the necessary studies to assure what benefits may be derived from these vitamins.

MR. BARRETT: What about this girl? What about this girl?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the life of a person may be saved by the vitamin, and the vitamin only, is a totally irresponsible thing that I think he should consider again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: MR. Speaker, if you want to get into a debate, then, we'll get into a debate. I'll take the doctor's word, not yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a matter of a debate in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. WALLACE: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, the minister talked about the responsibility of the ministry in providing the funding for these medications. Is the minister aware that many of those patients who can't get the vitamins go to the doctor and get a very expensive prescription for tranquilizers which merely suppress the symptoms and don't do a damn thing for the disease, and you pay for these? Pharmacare pays for them!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Oak Bay, whom I believe also has certain expertise in the field, has any information available with respect to the benefits of vitamins, I would ask that he submit it. I'm surprised that he's waited all this time before submitting such information.

MR. WALLACE: What about this very case?

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, I ask the minister, who's asking for submissions to his desk, whether he has asked the director of the Pharmacare programme to bring to his attention, as he's requesting this House, all special requests for megavitamin treatment. Yes or no. Have you give that instruction to your staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, what I would certainly ask, and what the director is well aware of, is that any information which will lead us to develop further statistical data on the use of vitamins, for or against, is being sought. It is not only being sought from the director of Pharmacare, it's being sought from the people in the medical profession. If some of the instant experts on the other side have any information, by all means provide it.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter becomes argumentative when you inject, hon. minister, that type of an opinion.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, we're dealing here with one person and a specific situation. I'd ask the minister now: would the minister look into this particular situation, given the fact that there is expert opinion suggesting that this would be a valuable health aid to that person - specifically that person?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, of course we will. If we can obtain this information, I can assure the hon. member. But it would be a tragedy and a complete act of irresponsibility to build up people's hopes on a cure which may or which may not exist.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You've got no heart whatsoever!

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the minister: as the director of Pharmacare is not a medical man, has the minister directed the issue of megavitamins to the interdepartmental drug committee which is made up of experienced medical people in the profession?

I'll give him the question again: as the director of Pharmacare is not a medical person and does not have that kind of medical expertise, has the minister referred this matter of megavitamins to the advisory drug committee for their recommendation? Has that been done? Or maybe the minister should tell us if he's disbanded that committee as well.

[ Page 4440 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I've just explained that the medical profession, in co-operation with the university, will be seeking out the necessary information. But again, before we leave this particular question - and I would like to see it go on a little further, because hopefully we can all learn something from what answer may be available, though I haven't received them as yet - if there's any member either on this side or that side which is aware of a doctor who has not made available a certain treatment knowing that it could be lifesaving. I would like to know who this doctor is. I would ask that they provide the name of the doctor who has refused to provide a lifesaving treatment for a patient.

FUTURE OF

WILKINSON ROAD JAIL

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): With leave of the House, I would like to respond to a question, Mr. Speaker, raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay a couple of days ago with respect to Wilkinson Road jail.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like to inform the hon. member and the House that replacement of the facility as it presently stands is second in the priority list to the phasing-out of Oakalla. As the member knows, positive steps have been taken in the direction vis-à-vis Oakalla, but at the present time Oakalla is the No. 1 priority.

That does not mean that we aren't concerned with the problems at Wilkinson. I would like the hon. member to know that officials in the ministry are continuing to consider alternative approaches: renovations, rebuilding, up-Island locations, better separation of remand from sentence population.

At the present time officials are continuing to make efforts to address the issues of security with respect to the existing facility. In fact, many of the steps that have been taken are the same that have been followed in Oakalla, such as more efficient use of available manpower, improved staff training, regional management structure and the use of metal detectors.

Dealing very briefly with the questions of escapes, I would like to inform the hon. member that the escapes for both this year and last year - 1976 - are down from 1975. In 1975 there were 13 escapes; in 1976 there were seven escapes; and as of July 28 of this year, there were five escapes. The two people to whom you referred in your remarks to the House, who, I believe, escaped on July 16, have been recaptured.

Mr. Speaker, I move we turn to orders of the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment, Attorney-General. I believe there is a report that has to be filed by the hon. member for Dewdney.

Mr. Mussallem from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presented the committee's fourth and fifth reports, which were read as follows and received:

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble of Bill 402, intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported with amendments. Pursuant to standing order 113, your committee directs attention to the fact that the proposed section 32 was not advertised by the petitioners. Your committee resolved to. waive the advertising requirement in respect of the said section in view of the fact that no rights of any group or individuals appear to be affected by the said amendment to the said section. All of which is respectfully submitted.

"George Mussallem, Chairman.

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble to Bill 405, intituled An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported with amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted.

"George Mussallem, Chairman."

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 33.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS SUPPORT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 33; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, they seem surprised.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster on section 1.

MR. COCKE: Their surprise should not be that

[ Page 4441 ]

evident. I think that having put forward a bill, where the first three lines in section I tells a lot of the story, they shouldn't exude any surprise whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, in section 1, where we're dealing with the authority, this aspect, I suggest, tells what we are terribly concerned about, a bill that will divide and conquer.

Dealing with individual schools and authorities and not school boards, but with individual situations, Mr. Chairman, is the situation that we find particularly repulsive with this section, although there are many other areas in section 1. It's the definition section which leads us to a lot of problems around this bill. Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here ... why independent schools, separate schools, private schools, or call them what you will, would support the authority aspect of this section, escapes me. I can't imagine why they would want to be dealt with in a manner where they could be dealt with individually by a government that could very well pick them off one at a time and treat them quite, quite differently. Mr. Chairman, as compared to other jurisdictions, and as compared to the public school system, these first three lines certainly indicate to us that there is no possibility for fair play.

I'd like to ask the minister a question. Are all schools now registered societies? Or has he looked into it? If they're not registered societies, those that haven't been, I guess, have to go back to square one, it would appear, meaning that it'll take them five years to qualify if they're not a registered society now. I wonder, however, if the elite schools, so-called, are all registered societies. I suspect they are, Mr. Chairman. I suspect that the schools where the Minister of Education has traditionally sent his children are well within the guidelines of the definition section of this bill. Would we find Brentwood College without a society? Would we find St. George's without a society? Would we find Crofton House without a society? No, I don't think we would worry about that. But I am concerned about the equality of treatment here. Do all schools - that is, those which the minister is suggesting he wants to support - fall into the category where they could be now in a position to qualify?

I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the minister in this particular section got caught in an election promise. First things first - take care of your own. Take care of Brentwood. Take care of St. George's. Take care of those schools that he is closest to.

Is it any wonder, in view of this first section, that we wanted this bill referred? Is it any wonder that the old Socreds, in the days before the Liberal invasion, wanted no part of this kind of situation? I call on those old Socreds. I call on the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , I call on the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , and others who were in their midst, on the basis of this one little bit, this first little section - this section that provides for inequality of treatment - to come out really strong.

Do you remember the old days, Mr. Chairman, when you were sitting in the House and this bill was first suggested by one of your old colleagues? Mr. Chairman, he was here. He was one of those neophytes with me in 1969. "Bennett Joins Desk Pounders To Buck Separate School Aid." That was the big story that day.

Where are they now? What are they going to do about this first section of this bill? Are they going to vote for this first section? I can't imagine them doing it, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, there's always that possibility. There's the possibility they might change their minds from the days when they were led by W.A.C. Bennett, who suggested at that time: "No way., ,

I say again, Mr. Chairman, that it's no wonder there has been a grave concern around this section of the bill. The section goes on. The second part of the section mentions the school boards. We're going to have to deal with that a good deal more later, but I'm going to ask the minister this question: why has he included the school boards at all, other than for assistance with making grants, when in fact they suggested they wanted no part of this particular exercise? Why, Mr. Chairman, do we see this authority, and why do we see the school boards involved in a bill in which they don't want to be involved when the authority could have been changed to a board of its own and, in that way, maybe carry out some of the wishes of the ministers?

This first section is the section that I worry about. I worry about it, Mr. Chairman, because of another aspect of it, where it shows down near the middle of the section group I and group 2 classification. What are we looking at there? Another opportunity to treat people differently. The only thing I wonder, since you put in group I and group 2, is why they didn't put in group 3. There is a group 3: those who are going to be destined to go before the school boards in different districts in order to get their additional help from the school board authorities.

So, Mr. Chairman, within the groups there is potential for real disparity. The fact that they are treated separately leaves real room for disparity. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this bill and this section leaves an awful lot unsaid. I think it's a potential disaster, and in the hands of that minister it is a disaster. Now I wouldn't make any suggestion at all that he will do as badly with this as he did with ICBC, but he's got a good start going, a real good start going in this particular area of the bill.

I have to, however, get down to the next area -and that's the area of the inspector. Later on in the bill where all his obligations and his duties are spelled out, we can go into far more detail. But let me suggest this: the way this bill is set up and the way

[ Page 4442 ]

this first section is set up, the inspector and the minister are Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. I suggest at this point that the inspector is the czar.

If I were a private school advocate, I would be very, very, very upset about the fact that the inspector.... This person who is described in this section means the inspector of independent schools appointed under section 2. Mr. Chairman, this person is going to be the person who rules the whole private school sector in our province.

I'd like to ask the minister whom he has in mind for this omnipotent position. What is the minister thinking of? Instead of creating a wider authority over the whole school system as the independent schools asked when they were discussing the question before the bill came in.... Any of us who have read their suggestions have certainly been led to believe that the last thing they would want would be a czar over the private schools in the province of British 'Columbia.

Anyway, we needn't worry. With this inspector around, there won't be any independence for independent schools. No independence whatsoever. We'll be getting into that some time later when we are talking about his duties. I can suggest that when he's appointed, he's appointed with omnipotent authority. The only one he answers to is the minister. And who does the minister answer to? The minister, and so on. I guess we could call them the czar and mini-czar. But in any event, the inspector concerns and worries us, and we can certainly see why there are grave concerns out there and grave concerns among those who support independent schools. Mr. Chairman, in looking at this in conjunction with other areas, we know perfectly well that that will be the case for the future of independent schools in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind all hon. members that in committee we do not debate again the principle of the bill. Relevance in committee is more strict than it is in the second reading, and I would like to remind all hon. members that it's going to be the responsibility of the Chair - and I hope that all members will assist the Chair - in keeping the debate as ....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you for some guidance? When there's a principle of a particular section that must be discussed, I'm sure that you'd want that principle discussed fully. Would you not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not for the Chair to decide, hon. member.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Where were you on second reading?

MR. COCKE: We were here in second reading, and as a matter of fact, we had a hot debate in second reading, and not one of those individuals over there other than the minister got up and discussed anything during the hoist debates.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ran out.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think I might just as well suggest to that member over there, who pays little or no attention to anything that goes on in this House and who certainly never gets out of his chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. This is exactly the kind , of thing that I was anticipating and was suggesting we do not delve into. Now to section 1, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fleetfoot!

MR. COCKE: On section 1, 1 was discussing areas of the section that troubled me, and section I certainly gives us the inspector. Unfortunately, I've lost something I particularly wanted to have on this section, but I'll come to it in a few moments. Mr. Chairman, going along on section 1: I'd like to suggest that it goes on to indicate the definition of what a Canadian citizen might be considered under the Independent Schools Support Act. The child has to have a parent "who is a Canadian citizen or who has been lawfully admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act for permanent residence, or had a parent who at the time of the death of that parent, satisfied the requirement of clause (a) , and who has a parent or guardian resident in the province."

Mr. Chairman, that's all very well. The only thing is, I suggest, that the formula, once established, does not indicate that the dollar is going to follow the child; the dollar will go to the entire school. If a school is populated with 50 per cent Canadian children and 50 per cent who are not Canadian, then my suggestion is, Mr. Chairman, that the whole school will benefit. And there is nothing I can see in the section which would indicate to me that there's going to be any way the other people - that is, the ones who are Canadian - are going to have any kind of a benefit.

Just for fun, we phoned a couple of schools. One charges $5,200 a year. We asked the question: "When this bill is proclaimed, what will your rate be?" The answer was $5,200 a year. It's not going to make any difference.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there isn't going to be any great benefit to the children under those circumstances. The great benefit might still go to those people who come here from other countries. Now I know there are many schools where this is the

[ Page 4443 ]

case; we are educating children from other countries. I don't think that's a bad idea, but I do suggest they're going to have to carry their own weight. And I don't necessarily think this bill is going to make that difference, because the dollar is not following the child. The dollar is going to the school based on the number of children who are there who have this Canadian citizenship or who qualify under that particular situation.

Another thing, Mr. Chairman. The teacher under this section is indicated to mean a person employed to give tuition or instruction, to administer or supervise instructional service in an independent school. We're going to get back to the teacher after a while, but let me say this: the teacher described in this definition section does not have to meet, under the circumstances, the standards of the public school system. A teacher could be teaching in the public school system under a note or under a letter of permission for a period of 10 years and then, without the qualifications, go directly to this school system and totally qualify. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the minister has a lot to answer for in this first section of the bill. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the most he has to answer for is the fact that he's going to treat them separately. There is no kind of universal direction and one authority for each school.

Secondly, he's going to create a czar; he's going to create an inspector who will rule all that he surveys in the independent school area. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a misnomer calling them independent schools any longer. Once the inspector's in place, the bill should be changed from Independent Schools to the Inspector Schools Support Act. I'd like for the minister to have a word on it.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, I'm really surprised that this government has actually decided to push this bill through this Legislature and I'm going to keep on the ... I'm talking about pushing it through committee. After the protests which have been mounted and have come to this minister and his government, I happen to know that there were petitions with more than 400,000 names protesting the provisions in the committee stage of this bill alone, which I'm going to get on to.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): On a point of order. We're dealing with section I of the bill; the principle of the bill was debated some time ago. I don't think it's going to serve the purpose of the Legislature to debate the principle of the bill again.

I realize the members of the official opposition regret walking out of the House and not taking their position on this bill when it was their responsibility to do so, but this is no time to conduct second reading on Bill 33.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point of order which the minister has made is well taken and is one on which we've already cautioned all members of the House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, I'm on a point of order. Would the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) please be seated?

The point of order is well taken and is the same one that was suggested to all members of the House by the Chair just a few moments ago. In committee relevance is more strict than it is in second reading. I hope that all members keep this in mind. The Chair will seek to assist. On a point of order? The member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out that the reason I rose before Mr. Chairman made comment on the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) point of order was simply that a point of order, when taken, is explained by the member taking it. And if the Chair is so disposed - and it usually is - it allows some comment from other members on the same point of order before commenting himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When a member rises, he needs to say: "On the same point of order.

MR. LAUK: That's what I said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. LAUK: Well, I said on the point of order concerning the Minister of Education's point of order.

I just wish to add a comment. With respect to the wide group of definitions in section 1, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) was preambling towards those, and I think that a certain amount of leeway should be allowed, Mr. Chairman. And I would ask that you allow a certain amount of leeway to the hon. member to get to section I by way of that preamble. The reason I say this is that I feel the members on the opposite side are prematurely taking points of order and I'm a little suspect about why. What are they worried about and why are they trying to hide debate in committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your point is well taken. The member for Burnaby North continues. Please keep your remarks relevant to the section.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4444 ]

We'll go right into the discussion of the definition stage of this bill. I'd like to start off with the first one which defines the word "authority." I have very specific questions for the minister on these definitions. I do hope that he will be taking them down and answering them because, as it is one of the most important bills ever to come before this House, I think, Mr. Chairman, that he owes it to not only the members here but to the public to answer very, very specifically these questions which are being posed.

I was concerned at the beginning of the debate that the minister did not appear to be making notes, but maybe he has a retentive memory. We will hope so.

On the authority section, we know, according to this bill, that no grant is going to be paid directly to a school. It states that the grant is to the authority which funds and operates the school. That's why, Mr. Chairman, it's most important to have the minister explain to us very clearly just what the definition of authority is. If we look at the definition here it says it means a society incorporated under the Societies Act, or a corporation incorporated under a private Act as a non-profit corporation.

My first question to the minister on that definition is: could this society conceivably include more than one school? I don't think there's anything in that definition of the Act that suggests each individual school that applies for aid would have to do it as an individual school. It states "society." In other words, could we have a number of schools incorporated in a society that would apply as a group for this particular grant?

The second question on definition of authority: would this allow for the Indian schools - the few we have left in this province - to apply to the provincial government for grants under this Act?

My next question to the minister is on certification. It's most interesting to read that under this Act there is a straight suggestion - more than a suggestion; it's stated here - that there is going to be two rules for the granting of certificates for the teachers who are now in the public school system and the teacher who will be teaching in the so-called "independent schools." According to the definition here of certification, it most certainly is not identical with the present certification clauses under the Public Schools Act. A certification for private school teaching may be granted on the sole basis of having taught on a full-time basis for 10 or more years in a public or private school in British Columbia. It may also be granted by the inspector on the recommendation of an independent schools teachers' certification committee.

We're all very aware, Mr. Chairman, that there's no teacher who can get fully qualified certification to teach in the B.C. schools under those regulations except, I'm aware, of the letters of permission which are sometimes granted in cases where specialized teachers are needed.

Now my question to the minister is: would he explain to the House why and for what reason -what validation can he give? - when he is going to be giving and using the public's money, he is going to give the teachers in private schools a right to teach without the same certification that every public school teacher in this province has to undergo? Is this fair to students of the province? I think that is a most important question, Mr. Chairman, that we want to hear an answer from the minister on.

Does this mean, perhaps, that the minister is intending to change the Public Schools Act so that the teachers of this province can teach with the same inadequate certification with which they will be able to in a private school? I am sure that the ministers and his deputies and associates who worked out this bill for him must have some answer for this. But I'm afraid I can't see it, so I'm most interested in hearing what the minister has to say. Is he happy, in other words, that public funds are going to schools that will not have teachers who have full and proper certifications?

Then there's a most important definition here, and that's the word "independent." I have a specific question to the minister on that. According to this Act here, it says "independent" means: ". . . is not a public school, is maintained and operated in the province by an authority and functions as an elementary, secondary school or both." That's the definition as in the Act. My question to the minister is this: would he say that any school in this province which receives public financing and has any regulatory means or rules placed upon it, could in any sense of the word be called independent? Would he explain to us how it could be?

If the minister really believes the word appropriate to this Act.... Because we know the very reason for the existence of the independent schools is to maintain their independence. Surely once you receive money from any government agency, are you not going to lose some independence? Some of the reasons for your whole existence can perhaps be eroded. The minister has here the word "independent", yet the public funds are going to go to independent schools. So my question to the minister basically is: how can he explain how a school can maintain its independence if it is going to have to be under regulatory powers set by this government, minimal as they are? We will be coming to that later - our grave concern over those minimal regulatory powers. But they are there, and I question the minister's use here in this bill of the word "independent."

May I follow through with another question? If the minister wishes to state in answer, perhaps, that the independence of the independent schools will be

[ Page 4445 ]

maintained, would he then tell us if he believes it is correct and fair to the taxpayers of British Columbia to be financing independent schools who have no accountability to the public at large? I think it is very, very important that we have a specific answer from this minister, who we know has been the pusher behind this bill. I think he alone should be held responsible for pushing it, and every single member of that cabinet and the backbenchers should be held responsible for this disastrous bill. We expect some answers from the minister and the public expects them. So I want to ask the minister what I consider to be one of the most important questions in the public's mind: why should any school in this province receive tax money and not be accountable for their expenditure to the public?

Does the minister believe that there should be public school boards set up so that the public at large could sit on any independent school board and have their voice and their right to have accountability for the moneys spent by that school? Because if he believes that, it has been made quite clear by the independent school association that they do not wish to have that. But I can assure the minister that the public is not going to sit by quietly and see public money spent with no accountability.

There are many, many more questions that I have for the minister. As it is such an important bill I would hate to see us go along and spend the whole afternoon on questions, and then at the end of the day have the minister stand up and give us answers when perhaps some of these important questions could go by the board. So I would like to sit down now, pick it up later and hear some specific answers from the minister. I can ensure him that with a bill of this importance, there is no way we intend to sit back and not get an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would warn committee again that relevance in committee is of upmost importance. It's different than in Committee of Supply; it's different than in second reading.

HON. MR. McGEER: Just picking up on what the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said about the importance of this bill, I find it unbelievable that members such as herself and the speaker before her could be taking such a position on the bill now when they wouldn't even discuss the principle of it and vote on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like the minister to retract that statement. I made my position quite clear on this bill in a. speech which is in Hansard and fully reported in Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there an offensive remark that. . . ?

MRS. DAILLY: It was an absolute mis-statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Hon. members, if an error is made in statement, then that error needs to be corrected, usually at the conclusion of the member's speech. If it's a point of order or a phrase that needs to be withdrawn, the Chair would be happy to assist.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I myself took the occasion in summarizing debate on second reading to read into the Hansard record for that hon. member and her colleagues the official position of the NDP which they took in convention and which they didn't present to the floor of the House and get into the Hansard record themselves. You would have thought they would be grateful for that service, but instead we seem to be having second reading debate again today.

I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to answer the questions of the hon. member with respect to the definition of authority. It's the intention of the government that the aid will go to schools as the, -title of the bill indicates - the Independent Schools Support Act. So the support will be going to individual schools. If there is a problem with tite definition - and only when we begin to get applications from the individual schools will we be able to determine that for certain - then it will be possible for us to amend that definition of authority to be certain that the independent schools who wish aid are not excluded on account of that definition.

As I explained to the members of the House before, Mr. Chairman, the actual payments to schools will not commence for many months because the schools have to apply and an administrative structure has to be established and money has to be voted for the Legislature. Therefore if the definition, by virtue of our inability to anticipate who the applicants are, is such as to exclude them, then we will have an opportunity to redress that problem before the time comes to make any payments to individual schools. So I don't think the members need worry at this particular point in time. It's just not possible for us to anticipate all the schools that will apply.

The question was asked: who will be the inspector? Obviously we will appoint a very experienced and senior person who has had experience with the public school system. So the answer to that question is that we will have a very capable and experienced individual to take that responsibility. We'll handle it in much the same way we handle our aid to public schools, through civil

[ Page 4446 ]

servants who will make recommendations to the ministry. I don't think we have had dictatorship in the public school system, Mr. Chairman. I think the system of having inspectors who are employees of the department has done extremely well, and for that reason we intend to retain those general features.

With respect to whether payments will go to schools or groups of schools, as I explained earlier, the intention is to support schools individually, and that's the manner in which the administration will be set up.

Indian schools will not qualify, of course, if they are on a reservation, because they become the responsibility of the federal government, though at the present time, we do have active discussions underway with the federal government regarding the whole realm of Indian education. Because as the member said, there's a great deal of work that needs to be done in that area.

With respect to whether or not the schools will be independent, there is no obligation in this bill, Madam Member, for the schools to apply. If they feel their independence will be compromised, I'm sure they won't apply. So schools that are independent are free to do as they choose, but if they are desirous of government support, then that will be forthcoming under the terms of this bill.

With respect to certification of teachers, the ministry, as the member well knows, now certifies teachers and specifies the standards for that certification. The ministry will still be specifying the standard for certification.

Independent schools, as far as can be told from the scholarship exams that are written by graduating students, and by other measures that we're able to put together with the limited resources that the ministry has, are doing a very excellent job which, in itself, is a testimony to the quality of the teachers in the independent schools. We have full confidence in the capability of the teachers in the independent system. We have full confidence in the judgment of the ministry in determining what shall be the qualifications of teachers who teach in the independent schools, just as we have confidence in them to set the standards as to what shall be done in the public schools.

The member asked the question: "Are we being fair to the taxpayer?" The answer is: for the first time in 100 years, Madam Member, we are being fair to taxpayers. We're giving them the kind of equality that they have been asking for all these years and which in every other province, except British Columbia, is given recognition.

The member asked: "Will this be acceptable to the public?" The answer, Mr. Chairman, is: as far as I can tell, the acceptance by the public has been extremely strong. I think I've got a couple of hundred letters opposed to Bill 33, but something on the order of 10,000 in favour. For a time we sent out thank you letters, then we sent out mimeographed copies, and now we just stack them in cardboard boxes in the ministry. I think the response has been overwhelming.

I'm well aware of the invitation that has been in the papers - first of all by advertisements by COPE and their coalition - for people to write in protests. They took out an expensive ad in the papers and a few dozen people sent in coupons. That's added to the 150 letters of objection, but I don't think the expense of that ad brought the results that those people hoped it would bring. Certainly the mail continues to pour in in favour of this bill ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister....

HON. MR. McGEER: ... so I think it is acceptable. The member asked the question and I'm giving evidence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, may I interrupt, though, to remind the minister that perhaps the objection to the ads was in regard to the principle of the bill rather than to section I? I would ask the minister to please ensure that his remarks are relevant.,

HON. MR. McGEER: You are quite correct. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and will you continue to remind me ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm trying to help you, hon. minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... if I stray at all, because the one thing I don't want to do this afternoon is get into the principle of this legislation? If the members opposite will not tempt me to make speeches on this particular bill, I shall refrain. Mr. Chairman, I share your earnest wish that we stick with the strict meaning of each section.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I won't be too long. He did state at the end that he doesn't want to make speeches. I can assure him he'd better start preparing himself for some when the next campaign comes around.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not at all satisfied with any of the answers given by that minister, and the flippant, off-hand approach to the questions I asked is simply not satisfactory. You know, the most shocking answer that I've ever heard from a minister was the one he just gave on certification of teachers. I want to repeat it. I'll have to paraphrase and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, certification of teachers is under section 3.

[ Page 4447 ]

MRS. DAILLY: No, Mr. Chairman, it's definition - "certified" means.... That's what I asked the minister. He has a definition of what "certified" means, and I asked him to clarify it. When I asked that minister how he can actually state that a private school teacher does not have to have the same certification as a public school teacher, do you know what his answer was, Mr. Chairman? He said: "We are quite satisfied by the results which are produced when those private schools hold their examinations. Then we know, if the students do well, that the teachers must be good teachers."

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): What nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: What an insult to the public school teachers of this province! They have to have certification. They have to go through five years of university. Now is the minister going to apply that criteria to public school teachers? Are you going to go around the schools of this province and say to any school board in this province: "Look you can take any teacher you want and, as long as that teacher produces good results in the exams, we don't care what kind of a certificate they have."? That's exactly what that minister just said, and it's an insult to every teacher in this province who spent years getting their certification. The minister is telling us that if you teach in a private school funded by the taxpayers of this province - when this bill passes through by that majority over there - you can teach without proper certification and the minister will accept the fact that because you teach in a private school you must be a good teacher. I think that minister has a lot of explaining to do for that remark.

Then there's the second point. When I brought up accountability, he completely evaded it. The taxpayers of this province have shown in recent polls that they are not prejudiced, that they accept and believe in private schools, and the right of people to go to them. We all do. However, when the question was asked the taxpayers of British Columbia by numerous polls: "Do you believe in your tax money going to support them?" the majority said no. For the minister to stand there, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the principle of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm answering the way he answered my question. I'm just trying to point out that I'm not satisfied with this answer because his answer is not an accurate picture of what is going on in this province.

I think the minister's remarks on certification are appalling and I think it's going to create a traumatic shockwave throughout the public school system when the teachers find out that the minister seems to feel that any private school teacher is automatically better than any teacher who teaches in a public school.

On the matter of authority, I still don't think there is anything in his answer that specified that you couldn't have a group of schools applying.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that many other members want to speak, and I have many more questions so I'll take my place now.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, just to correct, it's getting rather tiresome correcting the minister in mis-statements before the committee and in this House, but I'll have to do it again. The minister was adequately described in an interview with the member for Oak Bay in B.C. Today. I know the minister thinks flattery will get us nowhere, but I wish to associate myself with the member's remarks. We're constantly correcting the minister in mis-statements, particularly about members on this side of the House. And certainly I made the statement during debate in second reading on this bill about the threat to independence and so on in principle. He shouldn't suggest that all of us did not make statements with respect to the bill. There are other situations where the back bench never gets up and debates principles of bills or motions in this House. They are a silent majority on that side of the House, saying nothing. Having regard for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) , I'm somewhat grateful for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Section 1 is the section we're on.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to section I there are many things that can be said. A series of pieces of legislation have come through the Ministry of Education, Mr. Chairman, which are somewhat disturbing. And that's a threat to the trade union movement and particularly to the association of teachers. I'm referring now to the definition of what certified means in section 1. Now relating that, it says: " . . . holding a valid and subsisting teacher's certificate of qualification or letter of permission issued under the Public Schools Act. . . ." and so on. It says nothing in there that would protect the integrity of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, why the Minister of Education wishes to do that. It's because he is anti-labour and he is an elitist. It is not in his interests at all to promote free collective bargaining. He has never done so. His relative, who was mayor of the city of Vancouver, was never in favour of this. Traditionally he personally has never favoured it, and that's why this definition does not include a protection for the teachers.

[ Page 4448 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member just be seated for half a moment? We have just completed in Committee of Supply some 263 hours of debate, which was the debate on the philosophies, the practices and the performance of every minister in his portfolio. We have sort of slid into the habit then of thinking along those terms. In committee on a bill, we are not considering the minister or his expenditures or his practices or his performances as much as we are the section of the bill and its interpretation and its effect on the bill, and whether or not amendment shall be made. This is basically why we are in committee on the bill.

I would just like to caution all members of the House, because we should not get the three kinds of debate confused. And in these early hours of committee I'd like to get it ironed out.

The member for Vancouver Centre continues.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing that information to us, and I'll make every effort to abide by it.

I point out merely that the name of McGeer in the city of Vancouver will long be remembered as anti-labour. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The kind of thing that I was just cautioning is the kind of thing that you are now....

MR. LAUK: I will relate it to this definition of "certified".

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General just said that I should be certified. This is the kind of comment we receive from that Attorney-General, an indecisive Attorney-General as he is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The evidence is overwhelming.

MR. LAUK: Your performance as Attorney-General is underwhelming, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Attorney-General, as he now is.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education could quite easily have shown himself to be a fair man and a straightforward man with respect to dealing with the teachers in private schools as well as in public schools, in giving them the opportunity to be included in the B.C. Teachers' Federation. His definition, by not mentioning them, excludes them.

Now getting on to independent schools, I am very, very concerned with the suggestion of the appointment of an inspector in an independent school. We have to review the minister himself and his attitude towards government currently and the attitude of any person in that portfolio who has the power to appoint an inspector of these independent schools.

I've stated before that I have attended Catholic parochial schools. I think they are of great benefit to our society and they contribute a great deal to the community here in British Columbia. I think that every family should have the opportunity to send their children to those kinds of schools, which, it seems to me at any rate, and speaking personally, provide a little extra to a student, giving them a little bit of creativity and allowing them to enhance their spirituality, which seems to be not too present in the monolithic public school system that we have. But that's saying one thing on one side of the coin, and then getting into the independence of these schools.

Now I have no intention of selling my birthright for a mess of pottage and for a few bucks coming through the Independent Schools Act, with the threat of this inspector mentioned in section I being a Dr. Goebbels, if you like - a minister of information or a high appointed official who has got to apply section 5. He's the one who makes those judgments. He's going to make those judgments. This is a bill designed to provide dictatorial powers to the Minister of Education.

Dealing with inspectors, which is in section I of the bill.... I would feel much more comfortable, Mr. Chairman, if you moved the mike a little over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would be happy to do that as soon as the member becomes relevant.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I do feel that it's important that the minister come to grips with some of these definitions. I believe that the people in the Catholic community and many people in the Dutch Reform community, who are the major recipients of whatever benefits or disadvantages of this bill, are very concerned about their independence. The minister does not seem to be.

This sort of St. George's-Shawnigan Lake mentality bothers me as well. Surely this bill, when they say operating expenses under section I means operating expenses as defined in the Public Schools Act.... Do you mean to say that you are going to provide operating expenses to St. George's School, a school of the elite in the city of Vancouver, a school where the landed gentry send all of their children to make sure that they are educated in an atmosphere of snobbery and separation from the ordinary folk in B.C.? People who have millions and millions of dollars, who own land in Delta and Esquimalt - and I don't mean a lot, where they have their home, I mean land and factories - and the people who run the economy of this province send their children to these schools. Are they so impoverished that they come

[ Page 4449 ]

under this Act? Is that what the minister is suggesting? Because these are the schools that he wants to support, Mr. Chairman. Under this definition of operating expenses to those schools: is he suggesting that? I'm shocked indeed.

There's no point for people to get up in this Legislature and say everybody is equal under the law and should get the same amount of money. You at least have to be over 65 to receive Mincome, so we know that it's not absolutely true that everybody is equal under the law. To say that it's a form of double taxation also doesn't wash.

If the minister had come down with a better section 1, a better bill altogether, we on this side of the House perhaps could take it a little more seriously, but I cannot see how this section and this bill in its entirety can be assisted. The schools and the people who send their children to these schools are very worried about their independence. I'm now going to sit down, having made those opening remarks on section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I asked explicitly some questions with respect to the authorities. I suggested that the authorities were an area where right off the bat in the first three lines of this piece of legislation, we see the opportunity for disparity. Dealing with each independent school on its own, not only is there an opportunity for disparity, but it will without doubt provide disparity.

One of the reasons that Acts are framed in the way they normally are, to provide parity, is because we recognize the human equation, and the human equation is one that says we favour our friends. I suggested to the minister that he's going to favour his friends. So far he hasn't given us any kind of indication that he's not going to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I was very interested when the minister stood up. The minister stood up and made a comment, and I have to reply to that comment. The minister said that we did not debate this bill in principle in second reading.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and I both spoke. As a matter of fact, I led debate for our side of the House. There were also a number of other speakers. Then we had a motion to hoist, and every one of the group who had decided to speak on the motion to hoist spoke on that motion. I believe that we have been outspoken about this situation.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): You were afraid to debate it. You ran out.

MR. COCKE: Afraid? What are we doing right now? What are you doing sitting on your fat dollars?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. COCKE: "He's already spoken, " the man says. Mr. Chairman, if he has any defence of this first section of the bill, then I would like to hear about it. Mr. Chairman, the minister went on to suggest that he can't anticipate the number of schools that will apply. I suggest to you that if they value their independence they won't be applying. I think the minister knows that. He knows that what he has done with this particular area, and particularly creating the disparity - the potential and the real disparity - is, I believe, a disservice.

I want to harp back to what the old Premier said when that Minister of Education was across the floor and a Liberal member. When the member from Vancouver Centre - in those days, Herb Capozzi -suggested this sort of legislation, with these potentials for disparity, what did the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, say? The Premier rose to outline government policy on this issue. "All around the world today the question is integration or segregation, " he said. "If the people want segregation, that is their right, but the government's policy is integration."

The very first three lines of this bill provide not only segregation but also super-segregation. Each particular school is dealt with separately by a czar. Who's the czar? The inspector. The only one who can mitigate the czar's authority is the Minister of Education. Where do you go to from there? I can't understand how even the member from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , a supporter of the concept of support for independent schools, could possibly support this section, or for that matter, most other sections in the bill.

MR. GIBSON: I don't support the inspector section.

MR. LEA: Hear, hear! I'm very pleased with that. This is the essence of that super-segregation that was suspected right from the outset.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Humbug.

MR. COCKE: The Attorney-General says: "Humbug." The Attorney-General has the lightest of comments, and it reflects, Mr. Chairman, on the Attorney -General himself.

MR. COCKE: Down deep he's shallow.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that in anticipation of this very kind of thing happening, the then Premier said: "We support integration." That's not to say that people shouldn't have the right to go to independent schools if they wish. We say they have the right. But for this particular kind of treatment, I suggest it's absolutely

[ Page 4450 ]

wrong.

Who did we see in those days, and who was on what side of the question? On one side of the question were the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) , the now Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , the now Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , the now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , the now Minister of Finance (Hon. My. Wolfe) , the now Speaker (Hon. Mr. Smith) . All those people were in favour of what the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, said - "integration." Mr. Chairman, who was on the other side of that issue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 1, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Of course we're talking about section I - the very first three lines of section I that I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, will provide this kind of super-segregation. You got me all wound up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. member would agree that he is now developing the principle of the bill - or certainly defeating the principle of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to start talking in terms of principle, there's a principle in terms of every section of this bill. The principle in terms of the first three lines of this bill is the separation.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to outline three people who are on the other side of the issue: the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . What is the minister going to do to put some kind of equality of treatment into this bill and into this section?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I have a specific question for the minister under the definition section of the bill concerning exactly what an independent school means. I'm asking about a very particular case in point. Let us suppose that a school met all of the criteria that the minister had in mind for an independent school, both as are shown in this bill and the things that he might have in his own mind as to what an independent school should be, and had one additional characteristic - namely, that it gave its instruction in Canada's other official language, the French language. Would that be an eligible independent school then, or would it be removed from the independent school classification simply because of the exclusive use of the French language in the school? I see the minister shaking his head. I'm glad to see him do that. Perhaps you could put it on the record.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be delighted to do that, Mr. Chairman. As you know, we're encouraging the teaching of French in British Columbia either as an immersion programme for anglophones or as a matter of first right for francophones. Certainly if an independent school were giving their courses in French, that would be a great service to both groups, and it would by all means qualify. We made some statements about French language programmes in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, and we will be making further and definitive statements in that respect in the near future.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): I just want some clarification on the definition of "certified." As I read "certified, " subsection (1) , anyone holding a valid certificate or a letter from the minister is automatically certified. I read it that way. I read that subsection (2) would say that anyone who had taught for 10 years or more - not necessarily continuously, but who had 10 years of teaching experience in an independent school or public school - would also automatically be certified. The third one says anyone who was recommended by the independent school teachers certification committee would also automatically, be certified. Is that the intention of this definition? Since subsection (1) seems to be automatic, I read the others as being automatic as well.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: I too am kind of curious about the definition for an independent school. As you know, one of the largest groups of students in the school system, certainly in the Vancouver area, is non-English speaking. I'm wondering if the minister would tell me if, under this definition, there could be a school in which all of the instruction is in another language other than the English or French languages, first of all, as long as it met all these other criteria for an independent school.

If you couple that with this third definition for certification - which is that these teachers did not need to be certified under the Public Schools Act, but just needed to be approved by an inspector - would that be possible? Would it be possible to have such a school, for example, where the Czechoslovakian community decided to have a school in which all of the instruction was given in Czechoslovakian, and none of the teachers have a valid British Columbia teaching certificate but were approved on the recommendation of the school teachers certification committee?

[ Page 4451 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I know of such schools in British Columbia that fall in that category. Of course, to qualify for aid, a school would have to have been in existence for five years. So I think that it's a hypothetical question rather than a real one. For Group 2 certification, the school has to be teaching and be assessed upon the core curriculum, which, of course, implies that there will be a definition of the core curriculum by the ministry, which there will be. You selected the possible existence of a Czechoslovakian school. We won't have a core curriculum in.... What do they speak - Czechoslovakian? There are no, to my knowledge, schools of that kind. Now if the member knows differently, then we'd have to think about that. But certainly, group 2 classification would be out without a core curriculum that was being assessed.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I just used Czechoslovakian, but in fact there are schools in existence in the province where the curriculum is not taught in English.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are schools for French, but what are the others?

MS. BROWN: You've got Chinese-speaking schools. There are schools where neither the teachers hold certification....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education didn't know that.

MS. BROWN: The teachers are not certified under the Public Schools Act and the students are not taught in English, but they do do elementary school. They do have kindergarten, grade I and this kind of thing. Would they now become eligible under this piece of legislation?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm informed that all such schools are teaching special things after school and that the youngsters go to the regular curriculum in English or French. You're required under the Public Schools Act to attend school, and by this it means the regular curriculum, up to age 15. We're not planning to fund schools that would be supplementary schools to regular schools, if that's what the question is.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the independent school is a supplementary school to regular schools, but that is beside the point. In fact, the students who are now attending these public schools and then going into these schools.... What I'm trying to find out, because the question has been posed to me by these representatives of these various groups, is if these schools will not become eligible. Because they do give the elementary school programme, they do meet the qualification of teachers who are not certified, and they are independent schools, as described here.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to .reserve judgment so that I can become fully informed of any schools of this kind which do exist. Members of the ministry, as the member probably knows, worked for a full year on this particular bill and did a fairly extensive job of canvassing the independent schools that were out there without this particularly coming to their attention. Now I know that there are Japanese schools and so on which sit on Saturdays and have their own cultural and other educational programmes as a supplement to the regular school programme. It's not our intention to fund those schools, but only the schools that give the basic education in either English or French. But if there's a circumstance that somehow missed our attention, then I think we should consider it. That's why I said I'd just like to reserve judgment on this particular point.

I'd like to remind the members, Mr. Chairman, that what the passage of this bill will permit is the establishment of an administrative structure which will permit schools to apply and then will permit the administration to inspect the schools and give a preliminary certification. This will all happen during the winter months and during the spring months. But it's not the intention - and the legislation does not permit this - to actually give aid until the completion of that school year. If this session ever ends, we'll be having another session in 1978 with bills that will be before the House in 1978. If this bill is defective, and these defections become revealed after the administrative setup is in place and the applications come in, then there will be an opportunity for the Legislature to take a second look at this bill and bring in any necessary corrections before any payments are made to any of the schools.

So if the members view the legislation in this light, they'll realize that it may not be possible to anticipate everything in advance of a system being established which will permit the independent schools themselves to make application. We think the timetable that we've set up for implementation of the bill will allow all of these unanticipated events to be corrected in time and for everybody to get fair treatment from the very beginning.

MS. BROWN: I'm almost finished. Really, Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to express is my concern that under part (iii) of the certification section we are going to find that the taxpayer will be funding teachers who are not trained, who are not qualified and who do not meet the standards which are presently in existence in the province. Because this

[ Page 4452 ]

third section of the certification definition is allowed to stand, what we're going to have are two classes of teachers, and in fact we are going to be funding unqualified teachers in a number of areas because the schools in which they are teaching meet other criteria. Do you understand what I'm saying? Because the school in which they are teaching meets the definition for independence in other ways, and teaches the core curriculum or whatever, under section 3 these teachers, because they've been , approved by the committee, despite the fact that they do not have the certification or the qualification as outlined in the Public Schools Act, are still going to be funded.

We shouldn't be a party to this. We should be very serious about the qualifications of our teachers, because they have access to the minds of our children. We should not be supporting second-class teachers or untrained or unqualified teachers for any reason whatsoever. If we are funding a school that is teaching exclusively in French or in Japanese or in Chinese or whatever the language is, those teachers should still have to meet the criteria necessary to teach in the public school system. We shouldn't have one criterion of teaching for the public school system and a different criterion of teaching for the independent or the private school system. I am really concerned about this particular section of the definition for certification. I'm wondering whether the minister will be able to explain to me why this particular section was included. Why did he do it that way? Could you explain that?

HON. MR. McGEER: It was felt desirable in this particular bill to give the Ministry of Education the same powers to certify teachers as it has under the Public Schools Act. So that's why the provision of certification was made. I think it's fairly evident that if the school has unqualified teachers at the present time, then obviously it's not going to be successful in attaining Group 2 classification, simply because the programs will not be up to provincial standards nor will the results of the teaching process. The proof of the pudding here will be in the eating. If the school has good teachers, then it's going to be able to meet the academic standards that are required under section 6. Therefore it will be possible for those teachers to gain certification because they'll be quite up to, the standards - and perhaps even above the standards - that are now established by the ministry for the public school system.

The idea here is to demand equal or better standards from the independent schools in order to achieve a support for instruction. All the powers that are necessary to do this are contained in this bill, and therefore I think that we are going to see very good results from the point of view of the quality of teachers in the independent schools.

MS. BROWN: Okay. What is the reality, Mr. Chairman? The reality of the situation is that a number of teachers who were unable to meet the qualifications to teach in the public school system are now teaching in the private schools or in the independent schools system. That is the reality. The minister knows that because the private school system, for one, pays lower salaries than the public school system, that they have not always been able to afford to hire certified teachers, teachers who have to meet the criteria to teach in the public school system.

Now what the certification definition is going to permit is that those teachers presently teaching in the private school system, who have been unable to meet the prerequisites or the qualifications to teach in the public school system, because they have been teaching in the private school system for 10 years, are now going to be certified. Automatically, they are now going to be certified.

Some of those teachers, despite what the minister may think, didn't meet the qualifications because they failed. They really did; they went to university, took the teacher training course and failed! It doesn't make sense to say that they are as good as or superior to - some of them are. There isn't any question about it. Some of the teachers in the private school system are superb. They are better than a number of the teachers in the public school system. But there are teachers in the private school system because they could not become qualified to teach in the public school system.

Now through his definition of certification, the minister is saying, as long as they have taught in a private school for 10 years, they are now automatically certified or, under section 3 of his definition, if they are recommended by the independent school teachers certification committee, then they are automatically certified. What are the criteria which the independent school teachers certification committee is going to use? I'm not discussing the principle of the bill; I'm discussing the nuts and bolts of how the thing is going to work. We are going to be certifying unqualified teachers. We're going to be paying them out of the public funds to teach in these particular schools and that is just not fair in terms of kinds of education that we want our children to have.

If we're going to be using taxpayers' dollars to put into the independent schools, then the teachers should have to meet the qualifications of the public school teachers. We want the best of all possible teachers for our children if our tax dollar is going to go into that school system.

Now the minister has not been able to justify this particular definition of certification except that because presently in the private schools it is possible to teach without meeting these qualifications, he wants to just carry it on in the same way. He is

[ Page 4453 ]

reluctant to demand that those teachers presently teaching in the private school system who are not qualified go out and get their qualifications brought up to standard or else get out of the teaching business. Really, that is what he should be demanding. His definition of certification is opening a loophole which in the final analysis is going to threaten the quality of education in this province. It is! We should be raising the qualifications; we should be insisting on higher and higher qualifications for our teachers, not lowering them.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get too far ahead of the debate but I would refer the hon. member to section 6 because it makes it quite clear that before a school can obtain funds for instruction it has to be able to meet academic standards. Now, you see, that's nothing which is demanded in the public school system. A public school in this province could fail to meet the standards of section 6 and we wouldn't be able to decertify the teachers. So this section in itself demands higher standards than we have for the public school system.

I'm very glad the member pointed out that there are excellent teachers in the independent school system. I think that's true. I don't want to be making comparisons, but it's quite possible that many people who are certified to teach in the public school system would have difficulty in getting jobs in the independent school system. It cuts both ways.

Mr. Chairman, because the authority for certification in the independent schools is set up independently of the Public Schools Act doesn't mean that they won't meet higher standards. I'm quite convinced that the standards established will be higher than the public school system and that the teachers we have in that independent school system will be every bit as good, or better. Therefore I really can't accept the member's arguments at all.

Certainly it isn't the policy of the ministry to certify teachers who are not competent. It's the policy of the ministry to upgrade the standards of teaching not only in the independent school system but in the public school system. Behind many of the programmes that have been announced in the ministry, including the core curriculum, the provincial learning assessment programme, the in-service training of teachers to upgrade their skills -that's all part of improved teaching.

Now if people aren't matching the standards that are required in the teaching of English, or whatever it may be, in the public school system, we offer in-service training to try and improve the situation. But there's nothing of that kind offered in the independent schools Act. Under section 6, the independent school has got to cut the mustard and the teachers have to cut the mustard or they don't get the support.

But, Mr. Chairman, to try and use this as a reason for not supporting the bill and the principle of it I think is a cop-out.

MS. BROWN: That last statement of the minister is really argumentative, and he should be called to order about it because we're dealing with section 1. When we deal with the other sections I will....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and please be relevant ...

MS. BROWN: I am relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... to section 1. Thank you, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the minister if he is trying to tell us that he has given all of this authority to certify teachers to the independent school teachers' certification committee without knowing what the criteria are that they're going to use to decide when a teacher is qualified or isn't. What are the criteria that this committee is going to use? Mr. Minister, would you tell me what the criteria are, please?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, equal to or better than the public school system,

MS. BROWN: What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? What does that mean? What are the criteria? Would you please list for me what the criteria are that the independent school teachers' certification committee are going to use? Now I know what the criteria the public school teachers use because it's here in the Act. I can read that. Now what are the independent schools going to use? I want to know what their criteria are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps, hon. member, this would be better discussed under section 6 of this Act.

MS. BROWN: It is not under section 6. It is under section 1. It deals with certification. He's given authority to a committee to certify teachers. What are the criteria?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, this will obviously be spelled out in regulations. Of course, as the hon. member knows, we're debating the general principles of the bill, not the regulations which lie behind it. I wouldn't attempt, as the member well knows, to dictate the details of the regulations to the House or to the committee. This will be spelled out. I

[ Page 4454 ]

can give the member assurances with regard to general policy of the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you continue, for the benefit of the committee, we are not debating general principles. We are debating section I - interpretation.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, there is a section here which specifies what certified means, and I realize that later on we can go into more detail with the minister on that specific thing.

But I just find this incredible, Mr. Chairman. This minister, in every answer we've had on this section 1, is telling us that the independent schools who are going to receive public funds are going to have completely different criteria for certification and for even what goes on in that school from any other public school in this province. In other words, he has implied that they are superior schools. He stated that: He's not concerned; we must just accept on faith that these independent schools are good schools. Therefore, whatever they teach will be satisfactory to him.

I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, it's not satisfactory with me; it won't be satisfactory to the public; it won't be satisfactory to the students and to the educators of this province. That is an elitist minister who is asking us to accept an elitist attitude.

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot more to say when we hit these sections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have a slightly different aspect. On the same definition, Mr. Chairman, the minister has already agreed that the certification is automatic for a teacher under three different sets of circumstances. I'm wondering now about the removal of certification. I know with respect to a teacher who has a certificate, the final authority as to whether or not a certificate will be removed is in the hands of provincial cabinet. I would take it, then, that a teacher who was certified under this definition by virtue of subsection (1) were to lose his certificate for whatever reason and the cabinet agreed that he lost it, then that teacher would no longer be certified under this legislation.

Following through to No. 3, anyone recommended by the independent school teachers' certification committee is automatically certified under this legislation. But if they lost that recommendation, then they would automatically lose their certification. Someone in category 2, though, who is certified by virtue of having had 10 years' teaching experience, I see no way that that person could lose certification once they had been granted certification automatically by showing that they had 10 years' experience.

I wonder if the minister has any comment on any way in which a person in category 2 could lose certification.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we do have regulations which set up a procedure whereby people who for reasons of incompetency are decertified as teachers, and I see no reason why regulations should not exist under this Act which would similarly disqualify people who have obtained their certification under section 2 if there were to be some change in their status such as mental incompetence or some drastic change in their lifestyle that would make it impossible for them to carry on in a satisfactory fashion.

I think the hon. member would agree that a person who has been satisfactorily serving for 10 years has had an ample test of their competency in the classroom. Unless some change were to take place following that, there would be reason for them to suddenly lose their style having been established over a prolonged period of time. So we will have ways - the regulations for decertifying people for cause. I would think it would require cause if they had done well for 10 years. Now perhaps there's something there that we haven't anticipated. If so, of course, the bill can be amended at some future time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe what he is saying is that maybe there should be some way of decertifying someone in section 2. He has mentioned regulations. I'm not a lawyer, but having had some experience in putting legislation through the House it is my understanding that the regulations can't go beyond the legislation. They can interpret the legislation. The minister, in commenting on this earlier, did agree with me that in reading this legislation anyone with 10 years' experience - and I leave open the question as to whether they should automatically be certified or not; I'm not sure that's enough evidence - will automatically be certified.

Now since the legislation is that clear - and I agree with the minister that it is very clear - I see no legislative provisions under this legislation - and it's this legislation we're dealing with - in which that person could ever be decertified short of dying.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on the same subject - and I'm very interested in the member for Nanaimo raising the subject, because I have had correspondence regarding this issue under the Public Schools Act -sections 149 and 150 govern the decertification of a teacher. I would like to confirm with the minister the fact that there is no procedure other than having the teacher write to the minister to challenge the decertification decision.

Now if that is the case - and I would appreciate knowing if I'm accurate in my interpretation that this is the case under the Public Schools Act - then under the bill we're now debating and under certification, is there to be any different mechanism? Or is it implied that the inspector who is given the authority to

[ Page 4455 ]

administer the Act would include decertification as one of his authorities. Now I know we'll be getting into the role of the inspector in later sections, but under the definition of certified, the third type of certification is by the inspector on the recommendation of a teacher certification committee. Can we assume, or is it the intent of this bill, that if an inspector's given that power to certify, he is also given the power to decertify?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's definitely implied. Also, the inspector can remove Group 2 classification if he so desires, and if an independent school is not meeting the standards of education that are required, it loses its certification. I'm sure the member will appreciate that the independent schools are in a somewhat different position than the public schools, where, if a teacher is decertified, then he no longer has a right to teach anywhere in the system, and it's a little bit difficult, as the member realizes, to dismiss a certified teacher. But with the independent schools, there's no tenure guaranteed, and if a person is not up to snuff and it reaches the stage where somebody might want to decertify them, the independent school, by all reasonable logic, would long since have dismissed the teacher in question.

I find it hard to conceive of a practical difficulty. I can see the theoretical difficulty raised by the member for Nanaimo, but surely in practice, either the school itself would take action or the inspector would take action on behalf of that school. He could drop the certification if the situation is bad and the school refuses to dismiss the teacher.

MR. WALLACE: Two further points, Mr. Chairman. In that case, could I just ask the minister if he sees any need for some more definitive appeal procedure? Because one of the concerns I have all the way through in this bill is the apparent enormous authority given to the inspector, including in fact the right to take away a teacher's opportunity to gain teaching employment in the province, namely by taking away certification.

I know that in my profession, if somebody wants to take away my medical licence because they think I've lost my marbles - and maybe that wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption these days - there are all kinds of procedures under the Medical Act whereby not one person, or even two or three persons, can take away my livelihood. So that's one question. Would the minister not feel that the bill would be improved by amending it to provide a definitive appeal procedure to a teacher who is losing this certification?

The second question I have relates to the small subparagraph 3, under the word "certified", where the teacher can be certified by the inspector on the recommendation of the independent schools teachers certification committee. It is perhaps more appropriately discussed under section 3, where the inspector has the power to set up these committees, but could I ask the minister if the regulations are intended to spell out the way in which these teacher certification committees will reach their decision? Or is it intended that the teacher certification committees, which can certify a teacher under subparagraph 3, will be a relatively autonomous or creative committee as they go along? I'm just interested to know what sort of guidelines the minister envisages for the teacher certification committees - and not only the guidelines, but the degree to which these guidelines will be written down somewhere, perhaps in the regulations.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, what the intention of the Act is to achieve in practice is to find out during this next period of months exactly where we stand with the independent schools. We have no idea yet how many schools will apply, what kind of aid they will choose to apply for, what their physical facilities are like and the problems, if any, that, they might have within their teaching staff. Until some of this data begins to accumulate, we're not going to be in a position to establish intelligent regulations.

So for the next period of months, we're going to have to send some people out in the field to evaluate the status. Provision is made in the Act to establish a number of committees. Obviously myself as minister or the deputy is not going to attempt to sit down on oracles one night and write out a list of regulations. We wouldn't know how to do it. We want to get a body of competent and responsible people to go over the data and on that basis to give us good advice on the specific regulations that should be drafted. That process is going to be some months away. To attempt to do it at this stage we'd only make a lot of mistakes.

So what we want to do is have the general authority under this legislation to establish the necessary administrative structure in the committees and to use the period of this next year to accumulate the necessary data to make the kinds of judgments that some of the members opposite think we could make in the absence of data. Only when that's assembled and some really appropriate regulations can be written will we be actually getting to the stage where we get the support itself. So we can't at this time anticipate everything that will be required in the way of regulations. What we can do is to say definitely what the policy of the ministry will be, and we can say definitely the order of steps we will take as soon as the legislation is passed.

I can remind the members once again that, all being well, we will be convening next spring. At that time, we'll have had some practical experience in the

[ Page 4456 ]

field. If gaps show up, we'll have an opportunity as a Legislature to close those gaps before, ordinarily, we would be making payments on behalf of the independent schools.

MR. WALLACE: The appeal mechanism.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think the appeal mechanism has a lot of attractions to it. Again, it's something that we need to evaluate in terms of the different circumstances in the independent school. The teachers in the independent schools have no security because you either have to cut the mustard at that school every year or you're just out, period. If you give a person an appeal and he comes back and he gets the certification, that doesn't guarantee a job in the independent system. It doesn't guarantee him certification for the public system. So if you're going to have an appeal procedure, it's got to be something which will have a meaningful outcome for the teacher himself or herself.

I'd just like to take that suggestion under advisement and think through what we might be able to do, and put that high on the agenda of the committees that will be established under section 3.

MR. WALLACE: Just briefly on this matter, Mr. Chairman. I think it's terribly important, and I'm not speaking just in the sense of this bill, much as that is the primary topic today. The fact is that the Public Schools Act also does not really provide any mechanism. I wonder if the minister would just briefly comment on the suggestion I'd like to make. Surely if the policy is to establish as least as high a level of teaching standard or better in the independent school system as now pertains in the public school system, would the minister consider some amendment perhaps, either to this Act or the Public Schools Act, which would cover the whole situation of teacher certification?

It's all very well to say that in the independent school if the teacher doesn't cut the mustard they're out. But the fallibility of human beings being what it is, there must be cases where teachers in independent schools are unfairly turfed out of the school. I just think in any area of professionalism, it is absolutely intrinsic to the whole idea of justice that if there is to be discipline or authority to take away your professional right to practise whatever profession you practise, there must always be an equally guaranteed, defined avenue of appeal for the individual to ensure every possible opportunity to prove or disprove the validity of that decision. It's a very important decision to take away the professional access to their work, their livelihood. It's an enormously important decision.

I appreciate the minister's comment that he's trying to establish at least as high a level of teaching in independent schools or higher than we now have in the public school system. It would seem to me that this would be an excellent point, when we're starting into a new piece of legislation, to spell out very clearly - simply but clearly - what the mechanism would be when a teacher stands to lose certification, which in turn means that they just can't teach anywhere in British Columbia. It's a pretty serious thing when that happens, and I would think that the traditional rules of justice are such that that individual must have an avenue of appeal.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we do have avenues of appeal in the public school system. I can't specify under the Act....

MR. WALLACE: It's sections 149 and 150, and you're the appeal.

HON. MR. McGEER: What we have under that is a series of review committees which I'm continually setting up, and judgments are made under that. We accept the recommendation of the review committee, whatever it is. If it's negative, the teacher appeals again to the minister and they appeal again to the cabinet. I'm sure the member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) had a number of those which were bouncing back. Indeed I know from personal experience there are places you can go beyond that, because the first summons I ever received in my life was a court appearance on behalf of a teacher who had been dismissed by a review committee five Ministers of Education ago. So I suppose maybe five Ministers of Education after me, some minister might be served with a summons on behalf of the teacher who was dissatisfied with a decision that had been made many years ago. So we do have a procedure set up in the public school system, and I think certainly we should do at least as well for the independent schools.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to go on record as very much supporting the point that has been raised by the hon. member for Oak Bay.

The fact that teachers in the independent schools have previously not had security in any given school is correct, but they could at least have a chance of going and getting another job in another independent school. But now under this Act, if they lose their certification, they'll be barred from the system entirely.

HON. MR. McGEER: They could still go to Group 1 schools.

MR. GIBSON: They could still go to Group I schools, I suppose, as the minister says, but they wouldn't be able to exercise their qualifications in the

[ Page 4457 ]

higher-rated schools. The suggestion I'd like to make to the minister, and perhaps this is what he was saying in his last intervention, is that I've examined the Public Schools Act and I can't find any provision in it for decertification. I can find provision for certification positively in the first instance, but is there a provision for dismissal which does call for the establishment of the review committees that the minister mentioned? I wonder if he could at this time give us assurance that he will, in the writing of the regulations or in his interpretation of section 13 of the Act, which relates to appeals, ensure that any teacher whose certification is to be withdrawn by the inspector will have the benefit of review by an independent committee of the general kind that's outlined in the Public Schools Act.

HON. MR. McGEER: We are talking about section 13 (2) of the bill where the appeal by a teacher is to myself. I can assure the member that we would set up a system equivalent to the fairness in every way to that which exists under the Public Schools Act for such an individual.

MR. COCKE: We're as confused as the minister on this bill. Now that's on this section. This is not to suggest that this whole section and every other section of the bill is very confusing, but the minister at once says that the inspector has the power to decertify, and he has an appeal section in this bill, very much the same as the public school bill, that allows the minister a right. But this appeal section here just allows the inspector to refuse to grant certification. It doesn't say anything about decertifying once the granting of certification has taken place. Then the teacher may appeal to the minister and the minister's decision is final. Now if that same power applies on decertification, then it strikes me that there is no court for the person being decertified.

I'm not at all sure that the section allows the inspector to decertify. I'm not at all sure as I read this over. I've read it over three or four times just in the last few minutes trying to see just where the Minister of Education gets off telling us that the inspector has the power to decertify. I see nothing in there that gives him the power to decertify, despite the fact that the minister has told us that it's in the bill.

I'd like him to explain that, and then I'd like to get into some other aspects of certification of teachers. Because I really think that compared to the Public Schools Act, this can be described as nothing less than a very poor substitute for the way things are handled under the Public Schools Act. Why should they be handled in a different way and why should they be handled in a less valuable way?

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to follow through on this question of certification I raised earlier, which is now being picked up.

It seemed to me that under category one, a person that's certified automatically by virtue of the fact that they have a valid teaching certificate can lose that. Therefore they have lost the condition for being certified and could lose certification. The same thing with respect to subsection (3) . Having lost the recommendation, for whatever reason, of the independent school teacher certification committee they can also lose their certification under this legislation. But the only requisite under subsection (2) is that you put in 10 years as a teacher. Now subject to a recount of the number of years, I don't know any other way that you can question whether or not it is 10 years more or less. I see nothing in the legislation that gives anyone at all the authority to decertify someone who has automatically been certified by virtue simply of having been around for 10 years in the system. Is there anything in the legislation that would allow anybody to decertify that person, regardless of the reasons for doing it, once they have established their 10 years?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are many forms of certification that are possible. Not'all certificates that are awarded by the department are the same, nor is there any guarantee in this legislation that certification needs to be given for life or any period of time. Certification, for that matter, could be for one month or one year, so I think there is sufficient freedom under the legislation to permit regulations to work satisfactorily, both to be fair and reasonable to the competent teacher and not lock in the inspector to continue to tolerate the incompetent teacher.

I again refer the member to section 6, which quite clearly gives the inspector the right to withhold certification from a complete school if they were unable to deal with their incompetent staff.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps some of the things that we are discussing would be better discussed in the various sections of the bill.

MR. COCKE: No. This is the certification section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would think that even the minister by now must be aware that there is something wrong with that subsection (2) . It doesn't say that one has to have all these things. He is quite right in saying that the certificate could read that a teacher is certified for one month and is subject to review monthly. It could do that. But if at the end of each month that person is able to certify or to show that he has been around for 10 years in the system, he gets automatic certification. The minister did tell me that in answer to my very first question.

[ Page 4458 ]

It's automatic certification under subsection (2) if you have been in the system for 10 years. Now it doesn't matter whether it's reviewed daily, weekly, monthly, yearly or once in a lifetime. The minister did say it's automatic, unless he wants to change that answer.

But to me, the legislation is quite clear: certification is automatic if you have a valid certificate, if you have been around for 10 years or if you are recommended by the committee. Nobody has any choice in the matter. You can lose under two of those sections by losing your ground, by losing your certificate or by losing the recommendation. But under subsection (2) , there's no way that you can be alive and lose that I know of in the legislation.

As I have said previously, regulations can't go beyond the legislation. They can interpret it and they can explain it, but they can't go beyond it. The legislation quite clearly says that person is certified automatically.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't read subsection (2) that way. I merely reiterate that the interpretation that I would place on this bill is that there is sufficient flexibility in the regulations to permit....

MR. STUPICH: But there isn't in the legislation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I don't interpret the legislation the way you would.

MR. STUPICH: You said it was automatic.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, in the first instance it would be automatic, but I think if it were a limited thing, it doesn't imply automatic renewal.

Again, it frequently happens, Mr. Member, that the interpretation that you might place or that I might place on the meaning of any series of ~words would be interpreted differently in a court of law. But I think you would have to agree that from the practical point of administering a piece of legislation, that those responsible people are going to weed out the incompetents at the same time they grant certificates to those who are doing a good job. If it turns out that your interpretation is right and mine is wrong and some court is defining our legislation in a different way than would be its original intent, then we have the remedy of an amendment. I wouldn't think it would be necessary on this account, but I can certainly refer the point to -legal counsel who have a better instinct as to how courts will interpret a given draft of legislation than you or I would have. If amendments are unnecessary, they can be dealt with at a future session, before we get into the circumstance of actually awarding certificates.

Again, I can only say that I disagree with the interpretation you chose to place on it but your interpretation might very well be accepted by a court and mine rejected. In practice, I think we would both realize the way any competent group of people would administer a piece of legislation of this kind. In the final analysis, one always has the redress of section 6. So I think the member is implying a handicap to the working of this bill that doesn't exist. But I can say that if it does prove to be a handicap, the Legislature will have ample opportunity to correct it.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to talk about certification again. If I seem to be belabouring the point, it's because I think that certainly the section on certification really gives us an inkling about the crux of this bill and what is basically wrong with it.

Now the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, as you know, has a responsibility to all of the children in this province who go to school, whether it be private school, public school, or whatever school system they choose to use. What the minister has said on the floor of this House on at least two occasions this afternoon is that he believes that the independent school certification committee is going to demand qualification of the independent school teachers which will be higher than that of the public school system.

He has also said that there are a number of teachers in the public school system who wouldn't qualify to teach in independent schools, but that vice versa is not the case - any private school teacher would be able to teach in the public school system, but there are a number of public school teachers who wouldn't be qualified to teach in the private school system.

First of all, I am not sure what that kind of statement is going ta have on the morale of the teachers in the public school system to whom this minister is responsible. I am discussing certification. I'm sticking very, very closely to section I of this bill. I'm just commenting on the minister's comments; these are not my comments. But what about the children in the public school system? What the minister is saying is that through this particular section of this bill he is setting up two different types of qualification, two different standards, for teaching of children in this province.

There are going to be children who will go to the public school system who will be taught by teachers who do not have to be as well trained or as qualified as the teachers who are going to be teaching the children who are going to the independent schools. That is what the minister has been saying this afternoon that this section on certification is all about. That is basically what is wrong with this piece of legislation.

If he has a responsibility to all of the children in the province to see to it that they have access to the

[ Page 4459 ]

best possible education, whether they pay for it out of their pockets independently or it is paid through the taxpayers' funding, then he cannot set up two different standards of training for the teachers who have to teach these children. In fact, certification should be the same whether you teach in the public school system or in the independent school system. In the same way that he is demanding that the curriculum meet the same qualifications and the same standards in the independent schools as it does in the public school system, then the qualifications for teachers should be the same.

Subsections 2 and 3 of this section dealing with certification should not be. They should not exist. It's a division. It's two different classes of teachers who are going to be teaching our children. As he himself has said, one set of teachers are going to be superior to the other, but the taxpayer is going to be paying for both. Now if there's something wrong with the public school system, let us set it right. Let us not go and use the taxpayers'money to set up this parallel system that will give a superior kind of education....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, you are now dealing with the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: I am not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please do not persist in irrelevant debate. If you're dealing with certification, fine; if you're dealing with the principle of the bill, the Chair will not accept that.

MS. BROWN: Did you use the word "irrelevant"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I used the word "irrelevant".

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but absolutely nothing that I have said to this point on this particular section of the bill could be considered irrelevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please. Would you kindly return to section 1?

MS. BROWN: That's right, and I never left it. I'm dealing with certification as described under this section in subsections (2) and (3) . They say that it is possible to be a teacher in this province without meeting the qualifications outlined in the Public Schools Act but by meeting some other set of qualifications which the minister this afternoon has informed us are going to be superior to the qualifications you will have to meet under the Public Schools Act. That is his definition of the section dealing with certification.

Dealing with the section, I am saying that the children in this province, Mr. Chairman, should be taught by teachers who meet a basic qualification right across the board. We should not have some children being taught by teachers with one set of qualifications and other children being taught by teachers with a superior set of qualifications, because we, the taxpayers, are paying for both. That's what I'm saying.

Now to carry this on, what he is doing in fact is splitting the public school system by this method. He is splitting this public school system through certification. He is using certification to split the public school system into good and better, better and best, and that is not fair, because we are paying for the whole shot. I am saying, rather than using certification to split the public school system, improve the public school system.

And the part dealing with certification -subsections (2) and (3) - should not exist. They are irrelevant, they are wrong, they're discriminatory and they should not exist. The criteria for certification should state very simply, ". . holding a valid and subsisting teacher certification of qualification, as issued under the Public Schools Act." That means that a teacher who teaches in this province - public school, private school, independent school, any kind of school - has the same level of qualifications and has had to meet the same criteria as any other teacher. That is what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman.

Now the member for Oak Bay raised the point of appeal for decertification. The minister says: "Well, it's going to be difficult, because if you become decertified under the Public Schools Act, that's one thing. If you become decertified under subsections (2) and (3) , where you got it because you taught in the school 10 years or because the independent schools commission has given you your certification thing, then that is a different thing." And he's right. It's going to be total and utter chaos, because we have all of these different standards for decertification.

So you go to apply for a job and you say: "Well, actually, I've lost my 10-year certification so I'm decertified as a result of having worked 10 years. But I'm still certified under this section, so I can teach in these kinds of schools. But if you decertify me in this kind of school, I can switch to that kind of school." But then this school can say: "I don't want you if you were decertified from that kind of school."

It is a total nightmare that he is designing and basically it is wrong. If you want to practise medicine in this province, you've got to meet the criteria for a doctor, regardless of whether you're in private practice or working in the hospital section.

If you want to teach in this province, you should meet the qualifications for being a teacher, regardless of whether you teach in the independent school system or in the public school system. That is all I'm saying. His definition for criteria is wrong. It's discriminatory. If he thinks that the independent

[ Page 4460 ]

school system teacher certification committee is going to come up with qualifications which are superior to the public school system, then all the public school teachers should have to meet that criteria too. He has a responsibility to see to it that the children of this province get the best possible teaching that they can get, not two different kinds of teaching - one for the kids who can go to independent schools and one for the kids who can't. I'm totally opposed to that concept.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister a brief question based on some of his own remarks in the debate so far. Perhaps it's as well to ask it on section I as anywhere.

The minister has suggested he and his department will be learning through experience as they work with the independent school systems over the years to come, and that amendments will be entered if necessary. I've just checked the Public Schools Act, which, I notice, runs to over 100 pages and some 269 sections. This particular bill here is six pages with 15 sections. I would hope the minister would agree that legislation should be specific whenever possible, rather than enabling. This could be one of the answers to the huge powers of the inspector, which I know many members of the House are concerned about.

The question I have is this: is it the minister's intention as more experience is gained with independent schools, to bring in amendments to the Act which will, in significantly greater detail, spell out the terms and conditions of law related to the independent schools in legislative law rather than regulatory law?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's always my preference - and I hope the member knows this from past days - to see legislation in legislative rather than regulatory terms. It's far more satisfactory and it's appropriate. But I think the member will recognize that in the circumstances we are in with a bill of this nature, it's hard to anticipate everything at once. We can move to put in certain remedies and Certain guidelines by regulation to begin with.

I would certainly anticipate that at the next sitting of the Legislature there will be amendments to this Act. Indeed, some amendments have already been suggested to us, but again, they're somewhat anticipatory and we would rather do the amendments to the Act all at once, after we have had a little bit of experience under our belts.

I have to explain to the House that the bill is general. It was written in general terms because we knew we had to collect data before we'd be able to write more definitive legislation. We do know that we haven't thought of everything and that amendments will be required at the next opportunity the

Legislature has. I fully anticipate that amendments and clarification will be there.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for North Vancouver proposed that you put this in the committee and collect data that way. What are you trying to tell us? That you're ramming through a bill that you're not sure of? Then you'll quietly say: "Well, we'll just look around it a little bit." I have a few more questions. What are you trying to tell us in a very soft voice? That it's all been a game? That you really don't know all the data? That's what you've said - that you're going to quietly bring in amendments next year.

What is going on here? This is a straight political admission by the minister on the debate of this section that this bill was political. It was brought in for a little fun and games --:. to go check some data and bring it back next year. This is a dramatic change in education policy of this province. You stand on this section and say: "Well, we'll go collect a little data. We'll come back next year with amendments, " I can't believe it.

Put this bill in committee, as suggested by the member for North Vancouver, and get every member of the House working on this section, and every single section. But don't play politics with it by coming in here and holding out some kind of political carrot, saying: "Well, we just brought it in to play around with and it'll come back next year." Mr. Minister, those are shocking statements.

You have no intention to follow through on this bill, or do you? What is this section all about? Just some game with you? I ask you bluntly and clearly, if you haven't got enough data and you don't intend to implement this bill, why don't you put it in committee, as the member suggested, and let the people of this province have the input they require and desire?

HON. MR. McGEER: When the time came up to debate the principle of this bill, one party in this House didn't have the courage to come in and vote. There's one party in this House that's unwilling to take a stand on the principle of this bill. There's one party in this House that has Played Politics with independent schools for years and years. There's one party in this House that has not had the courage to come forward and declare their stand. To come into this House now and start to take positions....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the hon. member take his seat? Hon. member, we must continue with debate on section 1, the interpretation section of this bill, and the Chair will not tolerate any deviation from that section.

[ Page 4461 ]

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the questions posed by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard who said that the bill was wrong and that there would be chaos, I can assure the member that the bill is not wrong, that there will not be chaos that when we come back, having inspected these independent schools, we will have a bill before us now that will be a smooth bill, a workable bill. The only chaos that we saw was when the NDP was in charge of the Ministry of Education, the chaos of Bremer, the chaos of Knight, the chaos of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, we are debating section 1.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I cannot deal with the minister's passion; I'm dealing with section 1. Good grief, Mr. Chairman, I cannot deal with the minister's passion; I must deal with section 1. And if I must speak to his back, perhaps that's the best . front he can give.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has now stated to this House: "When we can bring back a smooth section, then we'll have a better understanding." The minister has said this is a rough section. I'm asking you, under what rules of this House do we put rough sections through the House? I thought all legislation was what the government means. Now I ask the minister clearly this: does he believe that this section is the best possible section to put through the House or does he have another plan for this section that he intends to bring in next spring?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. MR. McGEER: This is the best possible section, Mr. Chairman. If the opposition is dissatisfied with it, I suggest for once they have the courage to vote against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've always had the courage to face each other in this House. That's a test of courage. There it is right there.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Now be quiet back there and respect the Chairman or I'll tell on you.

Mr. Chairman, the minister turns his back on this House after admitting in this section loud and clear that it's rough. He said on this section to you, Mr. Chairman, I quote his words back on this section in order through the member from Nanaimo: "Well, member from Nanaimo, you may interpret it this way." The courts may interpret the way the member from Nanaimo interprets it, but that isn't the way he interprets it. In other words, he's going to write legislation. The courts might misinterpret but it doesn't really matter. Trust the minister who's got his back to this House and his back to reason. Mr. Chairman, the reason why we are asking detailed questions on this section is because in this House at this time it is our responsibility to get the author of this legislation, the minister, to tell us exactly what is meant by this section. What he has admitted today is that he's not sure what this section means, but that if it doesn't mean what he thinks it means, on the other hand, it means something else. It may mean what the member for Nanaimo says it means. Why, then, he'll fix it up next spring. Smooth it out.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to use a parliamentary word. That's stupid. I wouldn't call the minister stupid, even though the minister calls other people who disagree with him names and then turns his back. Gee, if you turned your back to the teacher in school, whether it was private or public, you'd be called naughty, naughty. He talks about discipline in school and then turns his back to his own fellow MLAs. Give him the strap, Mr. Chairman. Tell him to behave himself. Pull up your short pants, through you, Mr. Chairman to the minister, and face the issue.

The minister has now admitted to this House, and everyone, that the section is a little rough but his intentions are smooth.

MR. WALLACE: He's an old smoothie.

MR. BARRETT: No, not that one. You can call a lot of them "old smoothie, " but not that one. It must be the heat. If you examine what that good, learned minister has said, it is that he has authored this section, brought it in but is not sure how the courts would interpret it. That's what he admitted to the member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . However they might interpret it one way, he believes it says another way. But he's going to go out and collect data on this section. Then if his data proves that what he has written now is wrong, then he'll smooth it out next year. Absolutely incredible. It's an admission by that minister that when he wrote this section, he wasn't sure what effect it was going to have.

The member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) who supports this bill - and I don't - said: "Put this section and the whole bill in committee so we know what we're talking about." And what do we get in response, Mr. Chairman? Much to my shock, the minister tried to play politics by attacking me on a partisan basis in this non-partisan Legislature. I didn't think he had raised himself to that level.

Really, this section deals with politics. The minister is saying to the independent schools and to everybody out there, regardless of your point of view

[ Page 4462 ]

on this issue, that he's going to play politics with it by saying: "We're in favour of it, but we're against it. We're opposed to it, but we support it. We're going to test it, but we know it's right." Mr. Chairman, he just said within the last six minutes this is the best section going, but that it's rough and they're going to smooth it out. What is he trying to pull over himself? He's not fooling anybody in the opposition. Is he trying to convince himself of something?

Now, Mr. Minister, you're a logical man, except when you fly off the handle. That doesn't happen too often. It's a little warm today; we understand you got a little heat there. Lovely personality. Fix things up on ICBC for people. A friendly fellow. Memos say don't mess around, but he smooths it out. This is Mr. Smooth. Go to the top and Mr. Smooth will straighten it all out.

Mr. Chairman, would the minister please inform this house what the urgency is to push through a section that he admits is not what he wants? Tell us what the difference is if he hoisted it for six months and brought in the legislation he wanted. Tell us that.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've explained to the members of the House the mechanism by which the Independent Schools Support Act will be put into effect. I've explained the reason why the legislation has been written in the fashion it has been written. I've assured the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) that it is the best section that can be written. I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, to the member that if he isn't satisfied with the section, he screw up his courage and vote against it.

MR. BARRETT: I don't take to indecent suggestions against myself. And I want to tell you, let alone to anybody else, that the member watch his language in this august chamber.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: August chamber. No, I'm sorry it's a September chamber, that's right.

Mr. Chairman, I enjoy a good joke. That's why I like the minister. The point is that I'm not here to hear the minister's twisting interpretation of my question. I am here to get a straight, honest answer of what's going on here.

. Now we've had these dulcet tones from the university area today gravely saying it may be this, it may be that; the courts may say it's your way. How can you bring in legislation about which you don't even know if you're secure enough in your own attitude that you will get the interpretation you set out to get when you wrote this section in the first place? Was this legislation written in that much of a hurry? Do you mean to tell me that this section, Mr. Chairman, never went through that 7 o'clock-in-the-morning cabinet minister's scrutiny?

What about all this stuff we've been getting that all sections of this bill have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb? It's more like a rake. I'm not talking about the minister; I'm talking about a garden tool.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's good for the minister's image to have him exposed this way on this section. So I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 31

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

On section 1 - continued.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, on certification of teachers, just one question to the minister: is the minister telling us - and this is what we surmise from the debate that just took place - that he intends by regulation to bring in government control over the teachers who will be teaching in the independent schools in this province?

HON. MR. McGEER: If the member will consult section 6, she'll see that for Group 2 classification for schools, teachers must be certified. I don't want to get ahead of the bill, but this just defines what "certified" means.

MRS. DAILLY: Just a supplementary to that, as I know my colleague wishes to continue. In essence

[ Page 4463 ]

then, this government does believe that they should have control over the teachers who teach in independent schools in Group 2.

Mr. Chairman, if I could elaborate to help the minister, I'm asking the question because I think the independent schools of British Columbia have been sold a bill of goods by this government, if that is your intention. I think they're going to be shocked to find out that this government that thought they could pick up the independent school vote by ramming through this legislation in the summer.... Now we're finding out that this government intends to entirely strip them of their independency by controlling the teachers within the independent school system.

I think it's about time you levelled with the independent schools of this province, because I know that in talking to many of them, they pride themselves greatly on their independence. If this is your intention, Mr. Minister, and probably that of your Premier and his cabinet, to strip them of their independence, I think it's about time you levelled with everyone in this Legislature and with the public.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't answer. Let the record report the silence.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister, in replying to my questions earlier about the way in which certification for anyone who was certified by virtue of having existed for 10 years could be lifted, said that he and I might disagree as to the interpretation of the legislation. That's entirely possible; there are ways in which we might disagree. But it happens in this particular instance that there's absolutely no disagreement, as I understand that.

When I read this definition of certification, it indicated to me that there are three ways in which a person would automatically be certified. I asked the minister whether or not he agreed with me, and I believe what he said was: "Absolutely. There are three ways in which a teacher is automatically certified under this legislation." I then asked the minister if there are any ways in which people might lose that certification, and I suggested to him that those who are certified by virtue of having a valid teaching certificate, or those who are certified by virtue of having been positively recommended by the independent school teacher certification committee.... If either one of those two groups lost the support of their certification, then they could lose their certification.

I felt that was the case. The minister agreed with me that both teachers in both of those groups would or could lose their certification in that way. I then asked him to point out to me somewhere in this legislation, anywhere in this legislation, any way in which legally - we're not talking about regulations now that go beyond the legislation; regulations have to stay within it - a person could be decertified, a person who had been certified simply because that person had put in 10 years. They're automatically certified if they can show that they've been around for 10 years. There's no provision in the legislation and there's no other legislation to my knowledge that would apply ... there's apparently no way in which that person could be decertified.

The minister went on to say that he thought there should be. He thought it would be good if there was - and that we would want it that way. I agree. There should be some way of doing it. I think he did say that this was something he might check with legal counsel. It was with that in mind that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) moved that we report progress on this, so that the minister could have some opportunity to check this with legal counsel.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend to the minister that he consider withdrawing this particular bill and go on with something else while he does indeed check this section with legal counsel. Because it would seem to me that there's no way to decertify anyone, and if someone were decertified, that person in law would have every avenue of appeal open to them to prove that there was no legal means by which they could be decertified.

I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he would consider withdrawing this bill at this time so that we can go on to something else while he checks this definition with legal counsel.

HON. MR. McGEER: No.

MR. STUPICH: The minister answered no, Mr. Chairman. Then I have to ... the minister replied in the negative. He's not prepared to withdraw this. I gather he is as concerned as anyone else, because he has said that it is something that could be checked with legal counsel. He has said that there could be amendments to this and admitted in all likelihood there would be amendments. So he is admitting that this definition is deficient or that there's more in it that should be. Perhaps it could be all cleaned up by simply dropping both subsections (2) and (3) . 1 don't want to make suggestions to him as to how it should be done. That's between him and legal counsel, but in any case, he has admitted there's something wrong with it.

He has said a different interpretation is possible, but he has not advanced any legal basis for any interpretation other than what I have suggested, and that is that a person who's been around 10 years is automatically certified and can't be legally decertified.

I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, to show me something in legislation, somewhere, that could conceivably be stretched in any way at all to give someone the legal grounds to decertify a teacher who

[ Page 4464 ]

was still alive.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to become tedious and repetitious in debate. I've indicated several avenues to the member already, including, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we give no guarantee with our certification that it's for life.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have to follow up then. The minister did say earlier that the certification might be for some period shorter than life. I then asked him: could not that person immediately and automatically be recertified because they had taught for 10 years, because he did agree much earlier in this debate with respect to certification that those covered by subsection (2) are automatically certified. There's no question of competence or anything else. They're automatically certified if they've been in the system for 10 years.

Now I asked him to explain to me how automatic" can be anything other than automatic, even though there is consideration or review of the certification. The review can apply to those in Group 1. It can apply to those covered by subsection (3) , where there could be review, because these people are under the scrutiny of the independent school teacher certification committee. But apparently there's no way of recounting 10 years.

I asked the minister....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He has not, Mr. Chairman. With all deference to what he said, he said that he's indicated several ways in which certification might be reviewed. I agree with him with respect to those covered by subsections (2) and (3) , but he has not yet indicated any legal basis for decertifying anyone who has been certified under subsection (2) . If they are for a week, they can then apply immediately and be recertified -to use his own words - automatically, because they've been there for 20 years. So I ask him to deal specifically with those who are certified by virtue of subsection (2) .

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, nothing in the bill requires recertification. That term is not used. The member has his own interpretation of this particular section. He's hanging on to it like a dog with a bone. It's not an interpretation that I accept. Mr. Chairman, it's not within the government's desire that the bill be either withdrawn or postponed. If the members aren't satisfied with it, of course, they can vote against it. I draw your attention to section 43 of standing orders.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, would tell us whether it would be possible to have one set of qualifications for all the teachers who teach in the school system in British Columbia, whether they are in public schools or in independent schools. Would that be possible, Mr. Minister?

I accept, Mr. Chairman, that I probably did not word this clearly enough. I'm going to try again. I wonder if the minister would tell me why the Act does not have the same qualifications demanded of the teachers in the public school system. I just want an explanation for why it has been necessary to have a different set of qualifications.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's because the people who are presently teaching in the independent school system have arrived as teachers under different circumstances than teachers who are in our public school system. Because they are derived from different backgrounds but have equivalent teaching skills, it becomes necessary to establish different but equivalent regulations to take care of the teachers who presently are in the system.

There are perhaps 150 schools and I can't specify the number of teachers in those schools. For 23,000 students there might be somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 teachers, I would assume. Very few of those are members of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Most of them have not been through our teachers' colleges in British Columbia. On the other hand, most of them have received very good training and are doing an excellent job. You can't really apply the regulations that are developed for the public school system to an independent school system. That's why they are different.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, is this then an interim measure? Are we to understand that it applies to the teachers presently teaching in the independent school system but future teachers coming into the system would be required to meet the same qualifications regardless of whether they are in the independent or public school system? I'm willing to accept that explanation for the present.

HON. MR. McGEER: They would be required to be equivalent or better, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Which brings me again, Mr. Chairman, to my question. If it is possible to develop qualifications that are better than the present qualifications which teachers in the public school system have to have, why not make these qualifications mandatory for everyone who teaches in the school system in British Columbia, whether they teach in independent schools or in public schools?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there are two different Acts and we're dealing in this case with the

[ Page 4465 ]

independent schools Act.

MS. BROWN: That's a very, very brilliant response, Mr. Chairman, and I accept it. But I am talking about a school system, not about the Act. I am saying if it is possible to develop criteria and qualifications for training teachers which is superior to that required of teachers presently teaching in British Columbia, is the minister willing to consider the possibility of making these qualifications mandatory for everyone who teaches in this province, whether they are teaching under the Public Schools Act or under the independent schools Act?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister is obviously quite unable to think of any answer to this question of decertifying someone who has been certified simply because they have been there for 10 years. It appears as though he just has no answer to it and is suggesting that we should quit talking about it because he can't answer the question, which is hardly good enough. It would seem to me there should be some way of getting out of the system people who are there simply because they have been there for 10 years. That's hardly a good enough basis to pay school grants to schools who have people on staff who have nothing going for them other than the fact that they have been around for a long time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put it to the minister this way. Why does he need that group at all? Why could this not be covered under subsection 3? Subsection 3 at least does provide for someone to look at these teachers and does provide for some review of their qualifications, and not only qualifications but of their present conduct as teachers or otherwise. The minister did agree with my interpretation of this. It does provide that if they lost the recommendation of that committee, well then, they could lose their certification under this legislation. I agree with them. Why do we need another group who qualify simply because they've been around for 10 years if there is provision for people to be recommended by a committee, a committee that can also recommend negatively? Why do we need this particular group?

HON. MR. McGEER: Schools applying for certification and instructional support are under section 6. I've had to refer to this section many times to answer the questions posed by the member under section 1, Mr. Chairman. In order for a school to apply for Group 2, it has got to prove its academic worth. This is something we don't require under the Public Schools Act but which we do require under this Act, which says that we're setting at least as high standards for independent schools as public schools.

Now, Mr. Chairman, naturally a school which has performed well will have performed well because its teaching staff has performed well. We wouldn't want any school that is doing its job to be shy about applying for government assistance because it thought that some inspector might move in and make different decisions with respect to the quality of the teachers who are currently in that school from those made by the school itself in achieving its academic standard. Therefore we are saying that if a school can demonstrate that it is doing its job academically under section 6, then we're satisfied that the teachers who are doing that job on behalf of the school are certifiable under section 1 (2) .

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister wants to keep talking about section 6 and I want to talk about section 1. I've been trying to do that all afternoon and he keeps trying to talk about some other section because he can't answer the questions on section 1. We're still dealing with this question of certification. We're still saying that three groups of teachers are automatically certified. That's all in section 1. There are provisions for decertifying those certified by virtue of subsection ( 1) or subsection (3) . 1 asked him why he needs those who are being certified under subsection (2) when it's simply because they have been around for 10 years. I'll just read subsection (2) because perhaps the minister hasn't had time to read it: "having taught in a public school or independent school in the province on a full-time basis for 10 or more years."

Now I heard what he said about private schools and that the people who have been teaching there in the private schools have been doing great work. Now he might have a private school that has done great work for 10 years. There might be 10 teachers on that staff and eight of them might qualify simply because they happen to have been in the system for 10 years. Now is the minister suggesting that that whole school is not going to qualify under this legislation simply because he doesn't like two of the teachers in that school? They are automatically certified if they are there for 10 years if they are teaching in a private school, and of course there's a definition here of "independent school" as well.

Mr. Chairman, it just isn't good enough. He doesn't need coverage for people who have been around for only 10 years. If we pass section 1 the way it is right now, the minister, by his inability to answer my questions, is admitting publicly that there is absolutely no way of getting out of the system a teacher who has qualified simply by virtue of the fact that that person has been in the business for 10 years. He has no answer to that, it would seem.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I want it very clearly on the record in Hansard and in public that the former Minister of Finance's (Mr. Stupich's) interpretation is wrong and that the public shouldn't be deceived, as they have been so many times in the

[ Page 4466 ]

past, by statements made by irresponsible opposition members.

MR. COCKE: Oh, for crying out loud, answer the question!

HON. MR. McGEER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be guilty of violating section 43 of our standing orders, but we have been over this many, many times at which I've indicated a variety of ways by which the incompetent teacher may be dealt with. But I'll never do that to the satisfaction of the member for Nanaimo. However, I feel confident that that will be done to the satisfaction of people who are prepared to understand the legislation and are confident that we can make it work.

Mr. Chairman, I must remind that member that on all occasions in the past when changes have been made with respect to certification requirements in our public school system, provisions identical to this have been under our Public Schools Act. We're not doing anything different than has always been done under the Public Schools Act, but because of the prejudiced position of the NDP they're unwilling to accept proper explanation and precedent of any kind. I recommend that the NDP vote against this section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's quite good enough for the minister to say that I'm wrong, and to let it go at that without showing me where I am wrong. He has said we disagree. We agree more than we disagree on the interpretation of this section. We do agree. I want it just as clearly on the record that the minister does agree with me that three subsections apply to automatic certification of teachers. Now he said that; I agree with him. Well, I said it first and he agreed with me. There's absolutely no disagreement between us. We agree that those included in the system by virtue of subsection (1) and subsection (3) can be decertified. There is absolutely no disagreement. I suggested it and he agreed with me.

I have stated that there is no way of decertifying those tinder subsection (2) , and he says I'm wrong. But to this point in time - and we've been discussing it for quite some time - he has not at any time during the debate showed me anything in this legislation. He has said other legislation covers it. There is no way that I know of - and certainly he has not pointed out any way - in which the Public Schools Act.... Now the Public Schools Act doesn't apply for automatic certification of teachers who have been in the system for 10 years. He said it's covered in other legislation. Although he said I'm wrong, he has not to this point in time introduced anything to indicate to the members of the House or to the public generally that I'm wrong, other than to stand up and say so.

That doesn't convince me, Mr. Chairman. I doubt very much that it convinces you. I doubt very much that it will convince anyone listening to him that I'm wrong simply because he says so, if he is completely unable to show me anywhere in this Legislation or any other legislation I am wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I think that the subject matter has been extremely well covered.

MR. STUPICH: Except by the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The question can be asked perhaps repetitively, but only to a point, and then it becomes tedious and repetitious. Therefore I would suggest that although we can ask a question, we cannot insist upon an answer.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just asking for an undertaking from the minister. I'm wondering whether the minister would give us an undertaking that if, when the new criteria are worked out for qualifications for teachers of independent schools, it turns out that the qualifications are superior to those outlined in sections 149 and 150 of the Public Schools Act, he would be willing to amend the Public Schools Act, sections 149 and 150, to bring all of the qualifications into line, so that teachers in this province, whether they teach in independent schools or in public schools, would have to meet the same high level of qualification.

The reason I'm suggesting this is because I believe that since the minister has a responsibility to all of the children who go through the school system in the province, whether they go through the public school system or the independent school system, he cannot tolerate that some teachers be better qualified than others.

I recognize that he has these qualifications because of the teachers presently teaching in the independent schools and he does not want to insist that they go and upgrade their skills if necessary and meet the necessary qualifications outlined in sections 149 and 150, 1 accept that. But would he give us an undertaking that one day in the future all of the teachers who teach in this province will have met the same qualifications, in the same way that everyone in this province who practises medicine has to meet the basic qualifications in order to practise medicine? Will he give us that... ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This argument has been made.

MS. BROWN: Just a minute. He's listening very carefully, though, for the first time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This doesn't satisfy the

[ Page 4467 ]

standing orders, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister give us this undertaking?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my colleague expects an answer, and I don't know why she does. We've had no answers this afternoon - no satisfactory answers to any aspect of this section.

I'm really shocked at the way he's handling the bill. The fact is that he said that the section was rough. These are his own words. He said the section was rough, yet he doesn't offer any kind of solution to smooth it out. He said if we don't like the section we can vote against it. As far as I'm concerned the bill is rough; the section is rough; the minister's rough; the whole thing is rough.

I want to ask him another question, and that's on operating expenses. Now he intends to pay the operating expenses, apparently, according to this bill. Where is he going to get the money to pay those operating expenses? He assured, in front of this particular member and many, many other people of the public, the school boards of this province that he was going to get those operating expenses out of the air because he said he was going to see to it that the operating expenses were not coming from the education budget. Now if they don't come from the education budget, where do they come from? I'll tell you where they come from, Mr. Chairman. The operating expenses come from the taxpayers of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt the hon. member? We are now discussing the principle of the bill. Source of funds is not debated in committee. Source of funds would better be debated in another section.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, operating expenses means operating expenses as defined in the Public Schools Act. The minister assured throngs of people that those operating expenses were somehow going to be magically paid and not charged to Education. Either the minister is going to move this bill over to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) or some other minister, or they're going to come out of the Education budget.

The minister can't get his Act as far as putting his perception across on the way he should be operating the independent schools' situation, nor can he explain to us how this section is going to work. I would just like him to indicate to us where these operating expenses are going to come from.

MR. LEA: Goodbye, Billy, you've been a good boy. Have a nice evening.

HON. MR. McGEER: We're dealing with section I which defines operating expenses as defined in the Public Schools Act. We've dealt with the estimates of the Ministry of Education; we've dealt with the budget of the Minister of Finance; we've dealt with the principle of the Independent Schools Support Act, all of which would be appropriate places for talking about operating expenses in terms of their source. But that isn't what section 1 is about. It's about the definition of what operating expenses are. May I respectfully suggest that we stay to the meaning of section I of the Act.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what a joke! The minister has been all over the ballpark this afternoon in trying to evade questions, not answering any. I asked him a number of questions and finally gave up on the authority section. Now he's suggesting that he doesn't have to answer a question with regard to operating expenses. He says we have been through the estimates. He explained in the estimates that there was no budget this year for independent schools but would be next year.

All I'm asking him is: will those operating expenses be taken from the Ministry of Education or will they come from the wild blue yonder? A very simple question.

HON. MR. McGEER: They will be in the budget in the Ministry of Finance next year, Mr. Chairman.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a few questions. I'm terribly concerned about this section 1. I'm certainly no expert on education so I appeal to the minister in terms of understanding precisely how this structure is going to work.

The role and the function of the inspector have me alarmed, Mr. Chairman. I'm very much alarmed by this inspector who is provided for under this bill, because I see another section - it's going to be section 2 of the bill - that all of the powers granted to the minister under this statute can be granted to the inspector. They can be passed along by the minister to the inspector. There's nothing too unusual about that in other statutes and in other structures, but there's usually a safety valve - a venting procedure - which ensures and guarantees that centralization of control of power is not going to be complete.

Now in the absence of locally elected school boards and in the absence of any local apparatus whatsoever to represent the public interest, what I see in this statute is an unprecedented move toward centralization through some grey inspector. Mr. Chairman, this conjures up grave concerns about totalitarian indoctrination through a curriculum and through tight control set by one politically appointed inspector, accountable to no one, whose powers are

[ Page 4468 ]

not subjected to checks and balances through locally elected boards, representing parent interests and so on.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the powers of the inspector are defined under section 2. Section 1 just deals with the definition of who the inspector is, and I think the member's remarks might come up under section 2.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the point is that the position of the inspector is provided for in section I and that's what we're talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I've determined from various concepts that have been displayed here in the House today that the members are of the opinion that under the definition or the interpretation section, the entire concept or principle of the bill is open for debate again. If that were true, then there would be no reason to go to a vote on second reading. Indeed, the debate on the principle of the bill and, indeed, if there is more than one principle in this bill, it will have been debated in second reading. That vote has been taken and we cannot reflect any further on that vote. Let us restrict ourselves to talking about definitions and interpretation as they are in section 1.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really didn't understand what you had to say. As far as I'm concerned....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd be happy to take you to my room and explain it to you.

MR. KING: That sounds ominous, Mr. Chairman. The point is, we're dealing with section 1, containing definitions of certain individuals who hold key positions in terms of bringing life to this statute. The inspector is one such position contained in section 1, and one can't simply talk about the wisdom of creating the position and function of an inspector without paying some attention to what that role is going to be. Now it's not my position to talk about whether the role should be narrowed or broadened. That I shall attempt to do under section 2.

But there's a departure here in terms of setting up a position which is unique from the public school system in terms of the definitions. This is very unique and different. In my view, it's a dangerous new precedent. What I want from the minister, Mr. Chairman, is an explanation of why it is necessary to set up what in my view appears to be a czar with no public accountability, with all the potential powers not only conferred upon him by the statute but all of the powers conferred upon the minister as well. I say this is unprecedented, without any checks and balances for the venting of the public interest, for the venting of the local parent interest in education, and certainly without any checks and balances on the cost of these institutions which are going to be presumably partially funded by the taxpayers of the province. So there's a broader public interest than just the community served by the; particular institution.

This bill, by the implications of its scope as contained in section 1, is now going to be of interest and now going to be of concern to the total taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. So I would like to hear something from the minister in terms of why he finds it necessary to confer this unique and very unusual power upon a single individual. I frankly find it frightening. I find it autocratic; I find it a totalitarian approach to education. While I do not believe that the minister has any dire motivation, certainly the potential is there for dogmatic, totalitarian approach to education which would not only intrude upon the sovereignty, one might say, of the church in our society but which certainly holds dangerous potential for a variety of viewpoints that can be forced and visited upon local institutions through the power of co-opting them in terms of public funding unless subservient compliance is met.

This is a very dangerous approach. In the absence of any local structure to vent the public interest, I find this possibly the most dangerous statute that I've ever seen before the Legislature. I think the minister certainly in good conscience owes a more detailed explanation to the House on why he finds it necessary to provide this most unusual power in this statute.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, under section 2 there are certain powers and duties that have to be carried out by an individual, and therefore it's necessary to define that individual in section 1. That's why "inspector" appears in section 1.

With respect to the powers, the duties and the principles, Mr. Chairman, that was presented in second reading, and had the NDP the courage to be in the House during second reading, it wouldn't be necessary to repeat it during committee.

MS. BROWN: One very quick question, Mr. Chairman, on qualifying pupil. Would the minister give me an explanation for why he needed subsection (3) ?

HON. MR. McGEER: This is a residency requirement, Mr. Chairman, so that we don't do what some members of the NDP during debate suggested might be done - namely to use British Columbia taxpayers' funds to subsidize foreign students who would come to British Columbia. So it's very difficult to define a student in this respect except by defining the requirements of the legal guardians.

[ Page 4469 ]

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 30

NAYS - 14

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that after some discussion as we've just had on section 2, 1 move the chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can't accept that motion.

MR. BARRETT: All right. Well, I think we can accept that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

On section 2.

MRS. DAILLY: In section 2, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing very specifically with the duties of the inspector. There are many questions that I know members of the opposition want to ask on this section, and I'm certainly ready if it's the government's wish to continue on here.

The first question I want to direct to the minister: before we even talk about the great powers which he is delegating to this super-inspector, I would like to ask specifically.... I think he should explain to the House just how this super-inspector is going to be selected; also what kind of staff this is going to entail, because we know that a fairly sizeable staff is going to have to surround this super-inspector. I think we should hear from the minister in great detail just what the powers and duties of this inspector will be. I know that out there in the independent school sector there is great concern about the powers that are vested in the inspector. He is basically, according to this section of the bill, responsible to the minister for the whole administration of this Act.

Now I would like to call attention to the clock. I believe it is 6 o'clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North has the floor, but the Chair can hardly hear the member who has the floor.

MRS. DAILLY: I would therefore move adjournment. I think the feeling of the House is to adjourn now and I so move we adjourn the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I cannot accept that motion.

MR. COCKE: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The proper motion at this hour is that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Is that your motion, hon. member?

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to take the vote first unless the point of order has to do with the vote itself.

MR. LEA: Why don't you phone Kelowna and see what you do now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless the point of order has to do with the taking of the vote itself, I cannot recognize a point of order at this time.

MR. LAUK: Point of order is always in order. That motion ... oh, for heaven's sake. What a bunch of cackling sheep over there. You know, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Texas ... they're chickens in sheep clothing, that's all. Mr. Chairman, if we can get the small minds settled down for a moment, the motion that the committee rise and report resolution is out of order because there's been. no intervening business since the last time it was put for a vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has been held in the House, hon. member, that at the normal hour of 6 o'clock the vote has been acceptable to the House and the Chair has, on several occasions, accepted it on that basis.

[ Page 4470 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.